MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561566937 · doi:10.15173/jpc.v5i1.2595

The new lobbyist rolodex: PR

2016· article· en· W2561566937 on OpenAlex
Jennifer Thomlinson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Canadian institutionsSpectra Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Social mediaPublic administrationPolitical sciencePosition (finance)SociologyBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractDespite its long history and key role in the development of public policy, serving the needs of virtually every sector of society, lobbying is an underdeveloped area of academic research. This study aims to establish an understanding of lobbying at the federal level in Canada and its synergies with communications and public relations. Through a review of existing scholarly research, as well as in-depth interviews with 15 federally-registered lobbyists, five senior communications executives, and a survey of GR practitioners, this paper reveals that lobbying is very much aligned with public relations, especially as the online and social media landscapes continue to grow and evolve. It concludes that integration between the two fields is necessary, if not inevitable, and that greater public relations, marketing and social media expertise should be leveraged to position the government relations practice for a future that embraces the new digital rules of engagement.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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