What Gets Covered? An Examination of Media Coverage of the Environmental Movement in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse les communiqués de presse de World Wildlife Fund (WWF) et Greenpeace afin d’évaluer comment les tactiques et les cadrages déployées par ces deux organisations environnementales affectent l'attention médiatique qu'elles ont reçu dans The Globe and Mail et National Post entre 2000 et 2010. Bien qu'il soit clair que certaines tactiques soient plus susceptibles de capter l'attention médiatique, les résultats indiquent, cependant, que la totalité du répertoire de tactiques et cadrages ne sont pas tous efficace pour les deux groupes étudiés. Par exemple, un appel à la mobilisation citoyenne concernant un problème amène à une augmentation de l'attention médiatique dans le cas de Greenpeace, mais non pour WWF. Aussi, l'utilisation de recherche n'affecte pas la couverture médiatique pour WWF, alors qu'elle affecte négativement l'attention médiatique pour Greenpeace. Cette étude démontre que l'effet des choix tactiques sur la couverture médiatique est contingent sur l'identité du groupe mobilisant.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".