MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406427413

Argumentation, Ideology, and Issue Framing in Parliamentary Discourse.

2014· article· en· W2406427413 on OpenAlex
Graeme Hirst, Vanessa Wei Feng, Christopher Cochrane, Nona Naderi

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentation theoryArgumentativeFraming (construction)IdeologyEpistemologyLinguisticsPoliticsArgument (complex analysis)SociologyImmigrationPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In argumentative political speech, the way an issue is framed may indicate the unstated assumptions of the argument and hence the ideological position of the speaker. Our goal is to use and extend our prior work on discourse parsing and the identification of argumentation schemes to identify specific instances of issue framing and, more generally, ideological positions as they are expressed in text. We are using annotated historical and contemporary proceedings of the British, Canadian, and Dutch parliaments, looking in particular at speech on the topic of immigration.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207