MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203271898 · doi:10.3968/12199

Study on Paratextual Elements in News Transediting: A Case Study on the Transediting Strategies in Reference News

2021· article· en· W3203271898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Panzhe Zhao, Yu Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityNews valuesContext (archaeology)ChinaIdeologyPolitical scienceNews mediaPublishingAdvertisingHistoryPoliticsLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reference News is a state-owned news platform that provides foreign opinions to average Chinese readers. As the only Chinese news platform eligible for publishing articles from the foreign press, it serves as a “corpus” to study news transediting strategies in the context of China. This paper selects sources related to the COVID-19 pandemic from Reference News and compares the sources with the transedited articles. The author upholds there are three main paratexts guiding the process of transediting pandemic-themed articles on Reference News : reader’s value and horizon of expectations, ideology and national emotions, and national interests. It can be concluded that, under the influence of those three paratexts, Reference News generally prefers to use four strategies to transedit relevant articles, namely the selection and combination of sources, deletion, addition, and variation. The author hopes that, given the significance and popularity of pandemic-related information and opinions, this paper can enlighten future research on transediting news articles about COVID-19.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207