The Influence of Geopolitics and Foreign Policy on the U.S. and Canadian Media: An Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Sudan's Darfur Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerations of two facts, (1) Canadian media's strong dependence on the U.S. media, and (2) salient differences in foreign policy between the two nations (multilateralism— Canada, unilateralism—the U.S.) raise the question of whether Canadian major media's coverage reflects this difference.With content analysis and semantic network analysis of The New York Times (U.S.) and Globe and Mail (Canada) on the issue of Sudan's Darfur conflict, the authors found that (1) both newspapers focused on the facts of the conflict and Sudan's need of international aid, but (2) the Canadian newspaper's coverage focused more on multilateral/international help and people's suffering from the conflict than the U.S. media.Therefore, it may be concluded that geopolitical status and the U.S. media's influence exert a limited effect on the coverage of Canadian foreign policy: Canadian media have their own voice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".