The construction of political corruption in "The Globe and Mail" from 1990-2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a loss of readership and revenue, newspapers, one of the main providers of new information to the public, continue to playa major role in helping to shape public debate about social problems. The news media is therefore one of the primary ways for claims-makers to distribute their claims to a large audience. By presenting the claims, the news media alters the claims and re-presents them. These new claims represent one possible worldview, and because of the news media's major role in public debate, these claims may be very influential. A review of the research literature on political corruption shows that few media studies about political corruption have been conducted in Canada. Furthermore, the research literature uses a wide variety of different definitions for what constitutes political corruption, making it extremely difficult to compare and analyze different articles in the research literature. I chose to examine how The Globe and Mail, which many people consider to be Canada's premier newspaper, perceived, reported, and describes political corruption. My goal is to explore how The Globe and Mail describes political corruption and presents claims-makers' claims, and how these claims may influence debate. I used a quantitative content analysis to analyze newspaper articles about political corruption published in The Globe and Mail from 1990-2000. I found that numerous articles published in The Globe and Mail identified political corruption as a serious problem with serious effects on Canadians. Grand corruption in the Federal level of government was the most identified type of corruption, with favouritism as the main form. For quotes, The Globe and Mail primarily used State sources and alleged offenders. The structure of Canada's political system was identified as the primary cause of political corruption, while solutions were constructed to include either increased accountability or stronger laws. The information provided by The Globe and Mail usually came from others sources, and there was very little independent investigation of claims. These results show that The Globe and Mail presents a limited debate about political corruption. The focus on presenting State viewpoints may limit discussion of other possible causes and solutions, and this limited discussion may result in ineffective legal responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".