MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200180838 · doi:10.31124/advance.17118890.v1

Media Agenda Against Bernie Sanders? Examining the Emotional Tone of US Political News Articles

2021· preprint· en· W4200180838 on OpenAlexaff
Derek Newman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsCambrian College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadlineTone (literature)PoliticsPsychologyDemocracyAffect (linguistics)Social psychologyArtPolitical scienceAdvertisingHumanitiesLiteratureLawCommunicationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emotional tone of news articles (N = 120) on Democratic Party primary candidates was examined to determine if the media has bias towards Bernie Sanders. Using the Dictionary of Affect (Whissell, 2009), article words (N = 115,569) in the first 60 days of 2020 were measured for their pleasantness, activation, and imagery by candidate - Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Mike Bloomberg. Significant differences between Bernie Sanders and the other candidates were found for article pleasantness (p = .000), article imagery (p = 0.003) and headline activation (p = 0.23). Articles written on Bernie Sanders were less pleasant and more active in tone, as well as being more abstract (low in imagery).

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedia Influence and HealthFrench-language works237,207