Newspaper portrayal of mental illness in England, Canada, Portugal, Spain and Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolResearch concerning media portrayals of mental illnesses and the effects such portrayals might have on the public has usually been carried out within one country as a geographical limit. Herein, we analyse the results of the research carried out through the analysis of newspapers in 5 different disperse countries around the world in the last decade; England, Canada, Portugal, Spain and Japan. Some of these countries have started national campaigns to reduce the stigmatisation of these conditions, including a focused awareness on Mental Health communication in media. Despite the heterogenicity of the societies studied and the different measures adopted, there is still a negative portrayal of mental illnesses in newspapers, which contributes to the ongoing mental illness stigmatisation. Other media also showed similar results. Moreover, this review intends to give a general vision on how research in this area is carried out and propose a reflection on how it should be pursued. EnglishLa investigacion relacionada con la imagen que los medios de comunicacion proporcionan de las enfermedades mentales y los efectos que esta imagen tiene en el publico se suelen realizar dentro de un pais como frontera geografica. En esta revision se analizan los resultados obtenidos en diferentes estudios que analizan la cobertura de la salud mental en periodicos de 5 paises diferentes, Inglaterra, Canada, Portugal, Espana y Japon. Algunos de estos paises han lanzado campanas a nivel nacional para reducir el estigma relacionado con estas enfermedades y presentan una parte focalizada en la comunicacion de la salud mental por parte de los medios de comunicacion. A pesar de la diversidad de las sociedades estudiadas y de las diferentes medidas tomadas en cada uno de estos paises, sigue habiendo una representacion negativa de las enfermedades mentales en los periodicos, lo que contribuye a la perpetuacion del estigma. Ademas, se han obtenido resultados semejantes en otros medios. Finalmente, esta revision intenta dar una perspectiva general de como se llevan a cabo este tipo de investigaciones y propone una reflexion de como deberia de ser.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".