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
As jobs in legacy media organizations become increasingly scarce, crowdfunding has gained some momentum as a way for journalists to raise money to start their own media ventures or bolster freelance budgets. While crowdfunding is often positioned as empowering for both the journalists and donors, what is often overlooked is the amount and type of labour involved in crowdfunding. This article examines labour in crowdfunding from three vantage points: the labour involved in the campaign itself, the labour of the donors and the type of labour crowdfunding enables. This paper argues that the amount of work is akin to having a second full-time job. Moreover, having to embrace entrepreneurial techniques and market their work is something many journalists are uncomfortable with. Further, this paper examines how donors are implicated in the labour of journalism, and how journalists are hoping to “commodify” the audience. Finally, this paper addresses how crowdfunding does afford journalists agency, enabling them to work outside of legacy news structures, which many journalists find liberating.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
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