MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308581270 · doi:10.7603/s40874-014-0013-6

Communication Ecosystem Contexts: From Mass Audiences to Mass Messages

2015· article· en· W2308581270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mehdi Mohsenian-Rad

Bibliographic record

VenueGSTF Journal on Media & Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMass mediaContext (archaeology)EcosystemThe InternetPerspective (graphical)PerceptionEcologyComputer scienceGeographyAdvertisingBusinessWorld Wide WebPsychologyBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mass media used to have ‘mass audiences’. Nowadays, and with the emergence of the Internet and other new media technologies, messages themselves have turned into ‘mass’. These ‘mass messages’ have different densities, varieties, and dynamics in different societies and different countries. Accordingly, in this paper, we take an ecological perspective and resemble mass messages to living organisms that form ‘communication eco-systems’. We then introduce ‘communication ecosystem context’ as a new umbrella concept encompassing various previously known communication contexts. Based upon historical evidences, communication ecosystem contexts are classification into long-term and short-term, which can be formed normally, forcefully, or due to turn of certain events. In this paper the impacts of communication ecosystem contexts on message perception and interpretation have been studied primarily in Iran, and comparison have been made with five different communication ecosystems of Germany, UK, Australia, USA and Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGSTF Journal on Media & CommunicationsSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207