MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787424547 · doi:10.21953/lse.btysqags6o6g

Brexit, Agenda Setting and Framing of Immigration in the Media

2018· article· en· W2787424547 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Sogelola

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Socioeconomic and Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferendumBrexitFraming (construction)NewspaperImmigrationEuropean unionPolitical scienceSocial mediaNews mediaAdvertisingPublic relationsLawEconomicsBusinessPoliticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The result of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (henceforth the Brexit referendum) was historic as it signified the beginning of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. During the referendum campaign, newspapers played a key role in disseminating information and potentially influencing what topics were deemed more important in the public eye. This paper examines the portrayal of both the economy and immigration in the press before and during the Brexit referendum. Used as a data source for this examination is the Daily Mail, one of the most widely distributed newspapers in the United Kingdom both in print and online. The author undertook a media content analysis on over 40 articles published by the Daily Mail between April 2016 and June 2016 to discern patterns in coverage. This study seeks to offer insights as to how the topic of immigration surpassed that of economics as the most salient topic during the referendum due to agenda setting and media framing by the likes of the Daily Mail. While this paper speculates that these measures may have affected the outcome of the referendum, further data and investigation would be required to warrant such a conclusion.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.290 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science)Same topicGlobal Socioeconomic and Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207