The Mediatization of Public Administration: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an exploratory study of the concept of political mediatization. Using the scoping review method, we survey academic writings on this subfield of political communication. This research aims to highlight the dominant topics covered in the literature on the mediatization of politics, identify gaps in research, and provide a better understanding of how studies on mediatization align within the broader literature on political communication. With this systematic approach, we aim to better conceptualize the mediatization of public administration by identifying consensus on the concept in the existing literature. The scoping review process indicates that: (1) Studies analyzing mediatization focus on political actors and institutions, and the junction between political mediatization and public administration is rarely studied; (2) Approaches used to study the mediatization of politics are mostly qualitative; (3) The mediatization of public administration has only been analyzed quantitatively in European contexts, and; (4) Indicators used to measure the degree of mediatization in public administration differ widely between studies.
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 | 0.026 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".