MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554008126

Whose Streets? Representations of the G20 Protests in the Toronto Star

2014· article· en· W2554008126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniela Mastrocola

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue YOUR Review (York Online Undergraduate Research) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegemonyRepresentation (politics)IdeologySummitStatus quoNarrativeInclusion (mineral)Media studiesPolitical scienceSociologyCritical discourse analysisGender studiesPoliticsGeographyLawCartographyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following excerpti employs content and critical discourse analyses to investigate the Toronto Star’s representation of the protests that took place during the 2010 Toronto G20 Summit. Through the theoretical lens of Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony, it assesses the inclusion and representation of protesters and their motivations for protesting. Cumulatively, the findings of this research point toward a hegemonic narrative in which the ideological status quo and those who support it are presented as legitimate and natural, whereas dissenters are depicted as illegitimate and socially harmful. These findings are generally consistent with previous analyses of corporate media coverage of other protests in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue YOUR Review (York Online Undergraduate Research)Same topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207