Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian prime minister John Curtin, a formerly hard-hitting, labour-oriented reporter, deliberately elevated journalists’ roles to convey public appearances of being a caring leader, good neighbour and citizens’ friend during World War II (Alexander, 1971; Rodgers, 1971). \nCurtin’s journalism-oriented ethos was forgotten as post-war leaders developed the technique of delivering impersonal, unidirectional news conferences to the largely undifferentiated mass media (Craig, 2016). Scholarly interest has recently resurged into \nleaders’ emotive performances as they increasingly use digitised communications to deliver \npersonalised messages to audiences (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2020). This study seeks to answer: \n• Which strategies of compassionate communication did Curtin develop to elicit journalists’ support? \n• Which factors influenced journalists in portraying his compassionate ethos? \nThis study finds that he interacted more frequently with journalists than other major Allied leaders from 1941 to 1945 (Coatney, 2016; King, 1893-1950; Perloff, 1998; Tait, 2008). This paper conducts a rare analysis of Curtin’s confidential news briefings and film rehearsals that delve behind the scenes of his portrayal of his ethos during his extensive interactions with \njournalists from Australia, Canada and the United States (Alexander, 1833-1957; 1971; King, 1893-1950; Rodgers, 1971; ScreenSound Australia, 1944). The paper sets out to recover Curtin’s journalism-oriented ethos to influence the news portrayal of his intimate, compassionate prime ministership. This conception of ethos is useful for the study of journalism’s role in portraying leaders’ expressions of compassion, trust and friendship.©
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".