Reporting on the opioid crisis (2000–2018): role of The Globe and Mail, a Canadian English-language newspaper in influencing public opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aim to describe the general characteristics of how the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail reports on opioid-related news, the opioid crisis and its victims, and explore how Canadians' perceptions of the opioid crisis could have developed over time from this reporting. The Globe and Mail has the highest circulation among Canadian newspapers and is Canada's newspaper of record. METHODS: Reviewers performed independent, blinded bibliometric searches of all The Globe and Mail articles archived in the Canadian Periodicals Index Quarterly spanning an 18-year period (1 January 2000-1 June 2018) related to the keywords "opioids" or "drugs and opioids" and "opiates". Independently and in duplicate, reviewers manually extracted qualitative data from articles and identified emergent themes. Articles were screened independently by both reviewers based on the inclusion criteria. Conflicts were resolved by discussion and consensus. Social representation theory was used as a framework for describing how the opioid crisis is portrayed in Canada. RESULTS: Our search yielded 650 relevant opioid articles. The number of articles peaked in 2009, 2012, and in 2016, coinciding with major developments in the epidemic. The language used in this discourse has evolved over the years and has slowly shifted towards less stigmatizing language. Content analysis of the articles revealed common social representations attributing responsibility to pharmaceutical companies, physicians, and foreign countries. CONCLUSIONS: The Globe and Mail's coverage of the opioid crisis is focused on basic social representations and attributed responsibility for the crisis to a few collectives. A shift toward coverage of the root causes of the opioid epidemic could positively influence the general public's perception of the opioid crisis and promote deeper understanding of the issue. Journalists face several obstacles to achieve greater focus and framing of the opioid crisis; a closer working relationship between the media and the research community is needed.
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 | 0.018 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".