MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081707469 · doi:10.18192/aporia.v12i1.4842

Nursing Voices during COVID-19: An Analysis of Canadian Media Coverage

2020· article· en· W3081707469 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marilou Gagnon, Amélie Perron

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Agency (philosophy)Media coverageNews mediaNursing2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PhenomenonContent analysisMedicinePublic healthPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyMedia studiesVirologyDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While it is generally recognized that nurses and nursing issues are underrepresented in the media, the contrary is also true during major public health care crises like Ebola and SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). We see this phenomenon unfolding in the midst of the current COVID-19 pandemic with nurses and nursing issues receiving extensive media coverage in Canada and internationally. To gain more insights into this media coverage, we analyzed the content of Canadian news stories published in both English and French during the first five months of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper presents the findings of our analysis and identifies important lessons learned. We believe that our findings serve as an important starting point for understanding nurses’ agency and the media savviness they displayed during the first months of the pandemic.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0140.018
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207