Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim/Purpose: The research problem of this study refers to the manner in which old and new mass media represented the significant social development surrounding two crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX airplane. Methodology: The study follows a qualitative case study methodology based on a sample of newspaper articles, TV programming, specialized technical publications, Twitter posts, and Facebook content. Contribution: The study contributes to understanding specifics and differences in representing extraordinary socio-economic events by different types of media. Findings: Key findings are that these media have constructed different realities surrounding the tragic events and exhibited informing distortions to different degrees. Recommendations for Practitioners: Practical implications of this study are relevant for the institutional and individual clients of informing with regard to selecting appropriate media for use. There are also implications for informers with regard to reducing distortions in informing. Recommendation for Researchers: Social media could be a channel for alternative learning rather than manipulation. Mainstream media were confirmed to be a loudspeaker for authorities as postulated in critical media research, and analytical media provided influential, deeper technical analysis. Future Research: As the Boeing case unfolds, it would be interesting to investigate any evolution in mediated realities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".