The role of a common language in determining ethical approaches in journalism
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the ethical beliefs held by French speaking journalists will be considered in a comparative context. After presenting the results for French journalists based on the Worlds of journalism survey, the outcome will be compared to other French speaking journalists who are in a minority in their country, such as the French speaking journalists from Switzerland, Belgium and Canada. This comparison, for example on questions about the use of hidden cameras and microphones, paying people for confidential information or accepting money from sources etc., shows surprising similarities. It could be inferred that the journalists’ common language plays a role in developing common ethical approaches of journalism. We could further assume that international codes such as the Munich declaration of the rights and duties of journalists combined with more local sources, influences and references, circulate in homogeneous linguistic spaces. But a further comparison with other language communities of the three countries considered tends to prove that the French particularity is smaller than firstly thought.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it