MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494527481 · doi:10.4135/9781848608436.n23

Television Culture and Media Socialization across Countries: Theoretical Issues and Methodological Approaches

2008· book-chapter· en· W2494527481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Letizia Caronia, André H. Caron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationSociologyMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter illustrates the relevance of a \nsocio-cultural approach in children and media \nstudies and the challenges of adopting such an \napproach when comparing different cultures \nin order to identify their commonalities. \nTraditionally, universalistic approaches aim \nto identify recurrent patterns of action and \nmeaning and are often characterized by a \nprogrammatic bracketing of any culturally \ngrounded variable. Investigating what is \nrecurrent despite cultural differences, universalistic \napproaches mostly lead to large-scale \nquantitative surveys on who consumes what \nand where. Conversely, when culture is seen as the \nmain matrix of media experience and sense \nmaking, a relativistic perspective is often \nrequired. A strong conceptual link between \nculture and relativism may explain why, \nhistorically, cultural approaches have mostly \nled to national-specific studies, the results of \nwhich are often hard to compare. \nThe growing globalization of cultural \nproducts of information and communication \ntechnologies explains the contemporary resurgence \nin interest in international studies. \nNonetheless, comparable research projects \nare still rare. While some studies basically \ndescribe similarities and differences between \ndifferent countries, others provide a cultural interpretation of \ncomparative data. Even though national \ncultures frame children’s media experience, \nthis localization also incorporates patterns \nof globalization. The main hypothesis of \nthese comparative studies is that local cultural \nreferences are not in an aut–aut relationship \nwith respect to the trans-national common \nworld made up of media and contents. On \nthe contrary, children are able to move \nin and out of these worlds, to cross the \nboundaries of the ‘local’ and ‘global’ in their \neveryday life and create situated lines of \nconsistency. Their results aside, the value of \nthis new generation of studies lies primarily \nin their attempt to identify the multiple and \nconnected levels of media experience, to \ntake into account both its local and global \nnature, and to explore how these levels \ninteract. \nAfter presenting a brief history of the \nchanging paradigms in children and media \nstudies, the chapter will focus on two main \ncontemporary theoretical frameworks in studies \nof children’s media experience: the sociocultural \napproach and the phenomenological \nperspective.Acritical examination of the main \nmethodological approaches in investigating \nchildren’s sense of television is followed by \na report on a pertinent cross-national study. \nThe general aim of the study involving seven \ncountries (Argentina, Canada, Chile, Greece, \nItaly, South Africa, and Uruguay), was to \nexamine different cultures in order to identify \ntrans-national recurrent patterns of thinking \nabout and experiencing television (if any). \nParticularly, we analysed: \n1 The ways children perceive television as a member \nof their social world. \n2 How they experience television as a routine activity \nof their everyday life. \nAs we will see in the conclusions, the \nrelevance of this study is both substantive and methodological. \nThe empirical results show \nhow and to what extent children’s television \nculture is grounded in their everyday world \nof interactions and situated discourses while \nalso functioning as a connecting world of \nshared references. The methodological design \nis an attempt to cope with the challenges \nof adopting a socio-cultural perspective in \ncross-cultural studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.027
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0150.012
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207