MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905816870 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14664363.v1

Threatened or threatening? The framing of asylum seekers from the United States in the Canadian newsprint media

2021· preprint· en· W2905816870 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ana Brdjanin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)RefugeeGlobeTerrorismPolitical scienceMedia coverageForeign nationalCriminologyLawMedia studiesSociologyGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the implementation of Donald Trump’s Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, Canada has seen an increase in asylum seekers irregularly entering the country from the United States. The Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement is viewed as the main factor why asylum seekers have been crossing irregularly rather than at official border crossings. This study examines how the Canadian newsprint media has been framing these asylum seekers by analyzing 83 articles published in the National Post and The Globe and Mail between January 27, 2017 and April 27, 2017. A directed content analysis and social constructionist lens revealed seven dominant framings of asylum seekers, with the ‘victim/human rights’ framing occurring most frequently. The results of this study show that asylum seekers are more frequently being framed positively than negatively, a likely result of Canadian attempts at national self-differentiation from a negatively-perceived America.

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)0.009
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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207