Creating shared realities through communication: exploring the agenda‐building role of the media and its sources in the <i>E. coli</i> contamination of a Canadian public drinking water supply
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The media's role as an agenda‐setter has been documented in the literature, however less attention has been given to the role of the media as an agenda‐builder. The role of news agencies in constructing and shaping news stories serve to mediate risk messages to the public by virtue of what elements of a story they report, the types of sources they use in reporting the different ‘sides’, and how they package a story. The media are not the only ones who seek to set and build agendas. The sources, upon which the news media rely, can and do similarly engage in agenda‐building activities. They do so by appropriating the very ‘media‐ted’ process to use the mass media as a delivery vehicle for their own communication claims through their own packaged ‘take’ on the story. Drawing on a national print and televised media analysis of the Walkerton, Ontario, Canada drinking water contamination event, this study explores the agenda‐building role of the media and of Walkerton residents and citizen group members (Concerned Walkerton Citizens) quoted in media stories. The implications of this for risk communication will be discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it