Using parallel content analysis to measure mediatization of politics: The televised leaders’ debates in Canada, 1968–2008
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
Owing to their focus solely on media content, most empirical studies on mediatization of politics fail to consider the dynamic relationship between politics and journalism, even though this relationship would provide ideal data for assessing the mediatization hypothesis. This study aims to measure the mediatization of politics using a research design that tracks parallel trends in political and media content over several decades, with televised Canadian leaders’ debates and their coverage by newspapers as a case study. Our specific hypotheses target the discursive style of journalists (factual, analytical, judgmental), agenda building (the range of areas of activity), and framing (strategic or governing). Our findings support the hypothesis which states that reports on leaders’ debates have become less factual as journalists have increased the share of analytical and judgmental styles in their stories. Also, use of the strategic frame in news stories has grown, and it has been incorporated by party leaders into their own discourse during debates. Evidence is mixed regarding the impact of mediatization on agenda building.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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