MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900771681 · doi:10.1177/0196859918814821

Frames as Boundaries: Rhetorical Framing Analysis and the Confines of Public Discourse in Online News Coverage of Vegan Parenting

2018· article· en· W2900771681 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

VenueJournal of Communication Inquiry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionFraming (construction)Cognitive reframingSociologyRhetorical deviceMedia studiesDismissalDiscourse analysisEpistemologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyLawLinguisticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the boundary work of frames and the methodological significance of understanding this work when conducting rhetorical framing analysis. While the boundary properties of frames have been theorized by scholars, there remains a lack of clear engagement with how to effectively address these discursive boundaries methodically. I argue that agenda-dismissal, which makes use of both prolepses and blind spots, ought to be addressed in addition to agenda-setting and agenda-extension when conducting rhetorical framing analysis. A case study is provided in which the rhetorical framing of vegan parenting in online news media is analyzed and critiqued for confining the issue within a dominant health-based frame. Strategies for dismantling discursive boundaries and reframing public issues are also considered within the context of the case study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.324 · 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