Prawda czy fałsz w polityce informacyjnej? Wiarygodność telewizyjnych newsów a opinie polskich widzów w pierwszym kwartale pandemii COVID-19
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors studied the opinions of a randomly selected group of 100 respondents on the subject of policy of Polish and English language television services broadcasted at the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. An anonymous online survey asked respondents about the accuracy and reliability of the information, with the goal of understanding of how much respondents were aware of the influence of all news on their political views and attitude. Media content analysis, critical analysis of literature, as well as comparative and statistical methods were analysed in conjunction with the responses to provide a wider context. The authors were also interested in learning: 1) if people would choose the same TV station, 2) their approval rating of the incumbent president, and finally, 3) whether their preferences would be in line with the official ranking data. The authors concluded that the respondents’ recognition of the credibility of the new sources facilitated the formation of political views, and in the process, their choices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it