MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956102022 · doi:10.4324/9780429487477-5

Can analytics help save local newspapers?

2019· book-chapter· en· W2956102022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Blanchett Neheli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperAnalyticsComputer scienceData scienceBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New technologies and audience data are transforming local, legacy newsrooms that are built on tradition but adjusting practice to keep pace with a rapidly changing media landscape, deep revenue cuts, and shifting means of content consumption. Through ethnographic research, this chapter explores how digital production and the burgeoning use of metrics and analytics are changing the fabric of what makes local, local, along with challenging definitions of journalism and the traditional values associated with news. It compares and contrasts practice in two newsrooms: Canada’s The Hamilton Spectator , run under the umbrella of Metroland Media, and the Bournemouth Daily Echo in England, operated within the Newsquest group. Can the use of analytics give fresh insight into the audience and help save local newspapers from their seemingly steady decline? Or is a lack of time and training to use analytics effectively contributing to an erosion of journalistic values? The chapter aims to further understanding of the effects of digital production, how a growing reliance on metrics and analytics is impacting editorial decision-making, and how effective use of audience data might help local newsrooms survive.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.013

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207