The Portrayal of Climate Change in the Edmonton Journal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentation will detail the results of a content analysis of Edmonton Journal articles that examines the publication's portrayal of climate change from 2013 - 2016. Articles were coded for valence (whether climate change was portrayed positively or negatively), voice (which actors were given the opportunity to discuss the issue), scope (if the issue was emphasized as being a local versus global problem), skepticism (support versus denial of climate change as being an issue), and responsibility (who should be acting to resolve the climate change issue). Results for valence, responsibility, and skepticism will be discussed autonomously, but also within the context of current political attitudes in North America regarding climate change. Limitations of the study as well as ideas and implications for future research will also be addressed. Content analysis research began as an independent study and was completed with the USRI grant under the supervision of Dr. Shelley Boulianne. Discipline: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Shelley Boulianne
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it