Géopolitique des pôles. Vers une appropriation des espaces polaires ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen: El presente artículo explica cómo los medios de comunicación internacionales han retratado al país anfitrión en tres Copas Mundiales de la FIFA: Sudáfrica 2010, Brasil 2014 y Rusia 2018. La investigación analizó 5085 artículos producidos por siete medios de comunicación de cuatro países durante los acontecimientos utilizando un análisis del marco. Su objetivo es comprender cómo los medios de comunicación han mostrado a estos países, las similitudes en la cobertura y la transformación a lo largo del período. Los tres países presentan un caso de estudio interesante porque se considera que son países en desarrollo que organizaron la Copa Mundial de la FIFA con un objetivo similar: mejorar su imagen internacional. La cobertura de Sudáfrica y Brasil está dominada por temas sociales como la desigualdad, la violencia y la pobreza, mientras que en el caso de Rusia se centra en cuestiones políticas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".