MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W252439762 · doi:10.15173/mjc.v6i0.250

The Theory of Unrealistic Expectations: Utilizing a Framework of Established Mass Communication Theories to Develop a New Perspective on a Current Communications Challenge

2010· article· en· W252439762 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Donald L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe McMaster Journal of Communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Current (fluid)Communication theoryManagement scienceComputer scienceEngineering ethicsPsychologyEconomicsEngineeringCommunicationArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass communication theories are utilized to shed light on a challenge faced by the Canada Revenue Agency. The author leverages established theories to propose a new one – The Theory of Unrealistic Expectations. He explains that if people can see a network, they are far more likely to have realistic expectations about how long it will take for them to move through the queue or get service. For example, people who use highways that are jammed with traffic on holiday weekends know that their journey will take a long time and they will likely make an accommodation by leaving early. That is not the case when the network can’t be seen. The author uses this theory to reflect on why many people who file their taxes online do so at the last minute, thus creating challenges for the Canada Revenue Agency.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.037
Scholarly communication0.0150.021
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe McMaster Journal of CommunicationSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207