Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This special issue on ‘Media in minority contexts’ includes some of the best papers presented at a 2012 conference on the same theme held at the University of Alberta. The issue comprises as well three articles written by media practitioners in response to the researchers’ work. It also provides a general literature review of the field distinguishing two main strands of research: the status of media in minority contexts, and the participation of minorities in national, transnational and international debates. This second strand can itself be divided into three different subfields: cultural representations, communicative structures and sociocultural conditions for media access and use. The first article is an introduction to the special issue. It underlines how each of the articles in this special issue adds to the two strands and their subfields. It lays out some questions to explore further and argues that the research framework thus outlined ought to be considered from a multidisciplinary perspective.
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 | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".