Persuasion/Dissuasion on National Interest Agenda: A Semiotic Analysis of Pakistani Newspaper Cartoons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this research was depiction of and persuasion on national interest agenda through semiotics of Pakistani newspapers. It targeted a broad comparison among the semiotics as depicted in two Pakistani English newspapers i.e., Dawn and The Nation. To achieve the objectives, the study was divided into two parts: In part 1 the semiotics were analyzed and in part 2 the written part of political cartoons was analyzed. The study devised an integrated framework of analysis by blending Barthes (1957) theory of semiotics and Fairclough’s (1995) ‘three dimensional’ CDA model for interpretation and explanation of semiotics’ discourse. The study revealed the frequent use of multiple persuasion modes in political cartoons of both the newspapers’ semiotics and discourse. While comparing the two newspapers’ semiotics and discourse, the study also found that daily ‘Dawn’ semiotics played very negligible role in persuasion on national interest agenda of establishing military courts. However, ‘The Nation’ semiotics contributed positively towards national interest agenda-setting. The study recommended careful comparison between various newspapers by readership in order to know the ideological bent of newspapers while representing the facts and opinions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".