MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783568905 · doi:10.1177/2167479517753117

Relaying Rio Through an Australian Gaze: Australian Nationalistic Broadcast Focus in the 2016 Summer Olympic Games

2018· article· en· W2783568905 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication & Sport · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesContext (archaeology)CategorizationIdentity (music)Perspective (graphical)Consumption (sociology)AdvertisingAffect (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyGeographySocial scienceBusinessCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored how potential national biases unfolded within the Australian broadcast of the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics. Applying social identity theory and self-categorization theory, this study content analyzed a total of 45 prime time broadcast hours of Australia’s Seven Network’s coverage of the Rio Games. Although the majority of top 20 most-mentioned athletes were Australian, non-Australian athletes were mentioned more frequently regarding total name mentions. Moreover, Australian athletes and non-Australian athletes were described in significantly different manners when ascribing reasons for athletic success and failure. This study contributed to the literature by uncovering how in-group members were portrayed in the Australian sports context while also providing insight into how consumers’ media consumption could potentially affect how the network broadcast the Olympics from a nationally partisan perspective.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.273 · 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