MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301106410 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n1p257

Proposing Favorite Strategies to Produce Social and Political Documentaries for IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting)—By Purpose of Promoting State Social Capital for Adult and University Students

2016· article· en· W2301106410 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saïd Sarabi

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmusementGratificationPoliticsDutyState (computer science)SociologySocial capitalIslamPublic relationsSocial mediaPsychologyMedia studiesAdvertisingSocial psychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Informing and providing awareness is a part of mass media’s significant responsibilities and social and political documentaries is one of the effective frames in performing this significant duty on adults and university students. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is proposing favorite strategies for IRIB in making social and political TV documentaries with the aim of promoting state social capital for university students and adults. The method is in-depth interview with experts and utilizing the findings of another research titled “an analysis of the views of Communication Sciences students regarding the IRIB’s political and documentaries with an emphasis on the utilitarian approach and gratification level” adopting the Rosengren approach. Results showed that aggressive strategies are the most proper policies for the IRIB. Finally, the formulated aggressive strategies were prioritized and the most important strategy for this research is “producing social and political documentaries with informational approach in an accurate, precise, and comprehensive manner and considering other needs of audiences such as amusement, personal identity, and personal relationships”.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207