‘Dynamic’ Obama Lectures ‘Bumbling’ Castro on Race Relations in Cuba , While Wilfully Blind to Black Lives Matter Movement in the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter studies press coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Cuba in March, 2016. The study compares the clichés of Cuba in press coverage to academic studies of Cuban realities, from pre-revolutionary days in the 1950s, to the present day. The coverage may be readily seen as part of Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman’s Propaganda Model of news media, relating to a number of the five filters, such as media ownership and profit orientation, the reliance on advertising and pursuant promotion of capitalism, and the anti-communism or ideology filter, which opposes nationalism anywhere other than the U.S. The press coverage of Obama’s visit provided no indication of what Noam Chomsky has identified as the real reason for the embargo against Cuba: the pro-capitalist ‘rotten apple’ or virus theory. That is, if Cuba is allowed to flourish on its own, unimpeded, then the ‘virus’ of socialism could spread to other Central American countries, as indeed it has done in the past decade. One can see here explicitly that this concern and the Cuban example are central to a Chomskyan analysis of international affairs and specifically US foreign policy. Similarly, these results comply with the findings of other contemporary writers such as Chris Hedges, Stephen Kinzer and William Blum.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".