The unfinished science story: Journalist–audience interactions from the <i>Globe and Mail</i> ’s online health and science sections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science journalists are increasingly confronted with the ability of audiences to comment on science stories, create and share multimedia content, and blog about science. Yet, there is a surprising lack of literature exploring the narrative impacts of such changes on science journalism. To fill this gap, this article draws on the concept of the ‘unfinished’ science story to provide a narrative analysis of story-commentary sets from a Canadian newspaper (the Globe and Mail ). It shows how the authority to ‘finish’ a scientific narrative now faces: (1) the opening up of science journalism narratives to raw experience; (2) the reframing of issues by audience comments; (3) the emergence of a journalists–audience ‘stress test’; and (4) the heavy existence of negative commentary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".