MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900561400

The Myth of the “Gagged Clam”: William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Press Relations

2010· article· en· W2900561400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Bourrie

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyArtArt historyHistoryEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyClassics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

William Lyon Mackenzie King was the longest-serving Prime Minister of any Westminster-style democracy. He was also the only Canadian Prime Minister to work as a reporter for a daily newspaper. A solid understanding of media manipulation techniques was part of his mechanism for gaining and holding power. King attempted to ingratiate himself with Canada’s most influential journalists and publishers and maintained strong relationships with those who showed discretion in their dealings with the Prime Minister. King had no press or public relations advisor and did not hold press conferences, but he maintained strong personal relationships with key members of the then-tiny Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery and with their employers. While most historians and journalists who devoted any effort to analyzing King’s media strategies concluded he was wary and secretive, a more careful examination of the record shows King, in fact, carefully used his control over information to quietly forge links to many elite journalists in Canada. He honed these techniques while working in the United States as a labour negotiator and media consultant for the Rockefeller family and during his years as journalist.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207