MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124944954 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v1n1p25

Ad Baculum, Islamic State and Malaysian Chinese Politics: A Rhetorical Study of Selected Political Advertisements in the Local Chinese Media during the 11th Malaysian General Election Campaign

2008· article· en· W3124944954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kim-Hui Lim, Wai Mun Har

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIslamRhetorical questionPoliticsAdvertisingState (computer science)Theme (computing)General electionPolitical scienceSymbol (formal)Media studiesSociologyLawLinguisticsHistoryBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the rhetorical strategy of using the emotion of fear as a political tool in the 11th Malaysia General Election campaign. The three-prong objectives of this study are to analyze the main themes and issues used to address this tactic of fear, the general perceptions that non-Moslems in Malaysia have of the concept of Islamic state as a symbol of fear and rhetorical strategies used to provoke this fear. The scope of the study is confined to the conventional communication model of “Source-Message-Channel-Receiver”. The “sources” are political advertisements, the “messages” are Islamic state theme and related issues, the “channels” are symbols or rhetorical strategies and the “receivers” are the voters, with special reference to Malaysian Chinese voters. The findings concluded that the National Front party (Barisan National, BN) used the fear factor effectively in its campaign. This situation is further enhanced by the strong control of BN over the Malaysian media in addition to the character of Chinese voters who generally prefer not to leave their current comfort zone and are afraid of an Islamic state.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207