MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160747518 · doi:10.1177/19401612211018088

<i>How can we Agree on Anything in This Environment?</i> Tunisian Media, Transition and Elite Compromises: A View From Parliament

2021· article· en· W3160747518 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

VenueThe International Journal of Press/Politics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentEliteNegotiationDemocracyPoliticsTransition (genetics)Political sciencePolitical economyLegislatureDemocratizationMedia studiesSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on the role of the media during processes of transitions to democracy is divided over the positive or negative influence media outlets have. Both theoretically and empirically cases can be substantiated. In the case of the 2011 Arab revolts, however, there is a scholarly consensus that the media—traditional and social—have negatively affected the processes of transitions. While the criticism of the role of the media is empirically borne out, it does not explain how Tunisia was able to consolidate its democracy despite a polarizing media environment. Based on participant observation and interviews, the article argues that the inner workings of the Constituent Assembly and the role of individual deputies were crucial in overcoming a hostile atmosphere. This suggests that the role of political actors in negotiating the new rules of the game is more important than other factors shaping a transition.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.254 · 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