MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2649334846 · doi:10.1515/nor-2016-0036

Donors Do Not Trust

2017· article· en· W2649334846 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dmitry Yagodin, Matthew Tegelberg

Bibliographic record

VenueNordicom review/NORDICOM review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActor–network theoryDenialFake newsTRACE (psycholinguistics)JournalismPublic relationsPolitical scienceIntermediaPower (physics)SociologyMedia studiesSocial sciencePsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Focusing on a story exposing Donors Trust (DT) as a funding source for climate denial campaigns, we introduce actor-network theory (ANT) as a methodological tool for studying online intermedia agenda-setting. The DT story, unveiled by prominent British media in early 2013, had the potential to become a global media sensation. However, this did not occur in two distinct communication actor-networks, Russia and Canada, raising questions regarding climate change journalism and agenda-setting in contemporary networked news environments. This article takes a fresh approach to studying agenda-setting processes by using ANT to trace connections between national climate agendas, networks of power and sites of mediated information. By mapping ties between attributes of DT story actor-networks, it illuminates moments that preclude or facilitate intermedia agenda-setting in online media networks. This demonstrates ANT’s potential to help better understand processes of information dissemination in an era characterised by the exceptional interconnectedness of media landscapes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.332 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordicom review/NORDICOM reviewSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207