MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954039031 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2019v44n2a3346

Measles, Mickey, and the Media: Anti-Vaxxers and Health Risk Narratives during the 2015 Disneyland Outbreak

2019· article· en· W2954039031 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Josh Greenberg, Gabriela Capurro, Ève Dubé, S. Michelle Driedger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversité LavalCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakPublic healthMeaslesNarrativePoliticsPublic relationsVaccinationMedicinePolitical scienceVirologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Outbreaks of disease are common fodder for political debate and public discourse. In the past decade alone, health officials have faced a steady stream of serious public health threats, from H1N1 to Ebola and Zika, as well as large outbreaks of measles and other highly contagious illnesses. These incidents command intense media attention and focus public conversation around questions of risk and responsibility. Analysis This article examines major frames in Canadian news coverage of the Disneyland measles outbreak in 2015 to show how public health events are translated into social problems that magnify moral and political concerns. It discusses how parents who reject or express worries about vaccination were portrayed, and traces which solutions were presented to address the problem of vaccine preventable illness. Conclusion and implications Media coverage focused heavily on “anti-vaxxers” as central characters in the outbreak story. The coverage conformed largely to an established biomedical narrative, in which medical and health experts set the definitional parameters around the outbreak causes and consequences, and the preventive measures that should be taken to prevent future occurrences.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207