MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310401313 · doi:10.21810/strm.v4i1.65

Hidden Ties that Bind: The Psychological Bonds of Embedding Have Changed the Very Nature of War Reporting

2012· article· en· W2310401313 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueStream Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntelligence, Security, War Strategy
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Perspective (graphical)StorytellingPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyHistoryNarrativeLiteratureArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While embedded reporting has been allowed entry into the ongoing chess game between the military and the media, it is not apparent that the psychological nuances of its origins and impact on storytelling have been fully explored. Yet its adoption as a viable option in war reporting has led to a de facto division of journalistic framing. Embedding reporters with troops has led to a micro focus on soldiers and the minutiae of conflict, while traditional or unilateral reporting continues to provide contextual perspective on the purpose and impact of the fighting within a bigger picture. This essay argues that this division needs to be bridged.

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 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)0.006
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.353 · 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