Financial innovation in the Canadian Press: actors and reporting verbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This corpus helped to investigate the business sections of seven Canadian newspapers over a period spanning from 2001 to 2008 in English and in French. The newspapers are: The National Post, The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Gazette, La Presse, Le Devoir and Le Droit. The focus was on the sources whose speech was selected and reported by journalists in direct or indirect style when covering new subprime-driven financial derivative instruments, namely collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDS). With the use of the monolingual concordancer WordSmith 6.0, we looked at the following keywords: collateralized, backed, CDO, CDS and their French equivalents. The results were treated in 2 Excel files. In particular, we identified the different voices/actors who used the financial innovation terms. These voices could be the journalists or different institutional actors such as central banks or Canadian banks. When reported speech was used, we also identified reporting verbs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".