MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W376257457 · doi:10.14264/240277

Computer-assisted reporting and freedom of information

2003· dissertation· en· W376257457 on OpenAlex
Stephen Lamble

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe University of Queensland · 2003
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContemptJournalismFreedom of informationGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPolitical scienceFreedom of the pressCurrencyLawPublic relationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For nearly a decade theories have been advanced about why journalists have, or have not, adopted computer-assisted reporting (CAR) methods. It has been pointed out that CAR developed in the United States and was adopted more readily and used for deeper research by journalists in that nation than in other nations. One hypothesis in particular gained widespread currency. It was an untested assumption that CAR evolved in the United States and was used to better effect there because that nation had more open freedom of information (FoI) laws than comparable laws in many other nations - especially other major English-speaking nations. It was also believed that defamation and contempt laws had less chilling effects on United States' journalists than journalists working in nations with Westminster systems of government. This thesis contributes to new knowledge by reporting on findings which resulted from testing the foregoing theories. The research also produced important original secondary findings. The thesis examines the foundations of FoI and CAR and the place of each in different political and legal systems. It also contains conclusions drawn from a consideration of complex methodological issues related to journalism as an academic discipline. Among other things, it is explained how the research informing the thesis broke new ground internationally by specifically identifying the foundations of different concepts of freedom of information and the philosophies informing them in the modem era. In doing so it traces the roots of FoI from Seventh Century China, to 18th Century Sweden, to the United States in the mid-20th Century and then to other nations - some of which inappropriately adopted the United States' model of FoI in the past 20 years. Similarly, the evolution of CAR is traced from concepts which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s through to its use at the start of the 21st Century as a powerful practical tool for journalists. It is explained how that progression roughly paralleled development of the Internet and World Wide Web. Through consideration of in-depth case studies there are comparisons of the evolution and functioning of FoI and CAR in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand - with the latter three countries forming a group of prominent Westminster system nations which enacted their own FoI statutes in 1982. There is also an examination of the major differences between the United States' system of government and governance in the three Westminster nations. One area canvassed in detail concerns the effects on journalism, CAR and FoI of a clear three-way separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary and executive in the United States compared with the impacts of a lack of separation between legislatures and executive arms of government in Westminster nations. Another aspect of the research focussed on a finding that the United States failed to take such issues into account when it obsessively promoted its model of FoI as a foreign policy tool after World War II. It is also explained that comparative surveys of thousands of news stories in the nations considered herein produced some surprising results, including the fact that on a per capita basis New Zealand journalists were the lowest users of CAR but the highest users of FoI. That finding was related to a major conclusion of the research - which was that there was no direct link between the evolution of CAR in the United States and that nation's FoI laws. It was found, however, that there were links between the guarantees of press freedom and freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution and the adoption of CAR in that nation. A new way to conceptualise CAR as a collection of different journalistic tools is also proposed. The research pointed to an urgent need for greatly improved and properly informed education about the true basis of FoI so that it can be better understood by politicians, public servants, academics and students. It also reinforced conclusions of earlier researchers that there is a continuing need for journalists and media organisations to be educated about CAR and how to use it to best effect. Finally, a pressing requirement was identified for more research to define and document the methodology of journalism as an academic discipline.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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