MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037723614 · doi:10.1080/15295036.2020.1774069

Democracy, the public sphere, and power elites: examining the Ghanaian private media’s role in political corruption

2020· article· en· W3037723614 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Studies in Media Communication · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic sphereFreedom of the pressLanguage changeDemocracyPoliticsPluralism (philosophy)JournalismPolitical economyPolitical corruptionSociologyPower (physics)Political scienceLaw and economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can media liberalization and freedoms make the private media a powerful anti-corruption force in developing countries such as Ghana? Contrary to the popular view that media freedom, pluralism, and competition can help tackle corruption, I argue that democratic freedoms are not adequate safeguards for private media to fight political corruption. In doing so, I use primary data and media reports, Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, and Mills’s theory of power elites. Despite Ghana’s prevailing democratic freedoms, this study indicates that Ghanaian private media actively contribute to political corruption through biased reporting, propaganda peddling, indulgence in corruption, weak investigative journalism, and limited follow-up reporting. By examining whether Habermas’s theory of the public sphere and Mills’s theory of the power elites apply to the African context, this article makes significant contributions to both the theoretical and empirical literature. Policy and future research implications are presented in the conclusion.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.235 · 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