MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261704516 · doi:10.16997/wpcc.119

In Democracy’s Shadow: The ‘New’ Independent Press and the Limits of Media Reform in Morocco

2017· article· en· W2261704516 on OpenAlexaff
Aziz Douai

Bibliographic record

VenueWestminster Papers in Communication and Culture · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyShadow (psychology)Political scienceMedia studiesPolitical economySociologyPoliticsPsychologyLawPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the burgeoning of a new ‘independent’ press that has emerged in the last decade in Morocco, heralding the decline of the traditional partisan press. An analysis of two partisan newspapers reveals that the partisan press has failed to promote press freedom and frequently engages in self-censorship when confronting ‘red line’ issues in Moroccan politics. In contrast, the enterprising independent press has sought to broaden the margin of freedom through insisting on broaching those sensitive issues. As such, it has had great ramifications and implications at the level of readership and for the political reform debate raging in the country. Paradoxically, however, while attacking the old school of journalism for its partisanship, the new independent press has carved out a new form of ‘partisanship’, functioning as a conduit for an oppositional political discourse. The article reviews the debate surrounding those ‘red lines’ and discusses the prospects of reforming the press codes as one way of ensuring the survival of this independent streak of journalism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestminster Papers in Communication and CultureSame topicPolitical and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207