MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211003419 · doi:10.32920/19161623.v1

Who Achieved Covid-19 Success? A Comparative Analysis Of The Communication Styles, Rhetoric And Crisis Response Of Three Prime Ministers And What we Can Learn From The Leadership Of Australia, Canada And New Zealand

2022· preprint· en· W4211003419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gillian E. Campbell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime ministerContext (archaeology)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Crisis managementGovernment (linguistics)Political sciencePandemicCrisis responseCrisis communicationIncentivePrime (order theory)RhetoricPublic administrationPublic relationsEconomic growthHistoryLawMedicineEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus crisis of 2020/21 has been the largest global crisis in living memory. By summer 2021, nearly 200,000,000 cases of COVID-19 had been reported worldwide and more than 4,000,000 people died (John Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre, 2021). The governments of Australia and New Zealand, led by Prime Ministers Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern, implemented an early pandemic response that clearly communicated what the situation was and why it was crucial to act immediately, leading to a significantly reduced number of deaths and cases. In contrast, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was delayed in his initial response. His messaging was largely focused on offering financial support and incentives as opposed to adding context to the situation. This study aims to offer a preliminary understanding of the communication strategies and tactics that were used by the Australian and New Zealand government leaders to drastically reduce the number of COVID19 case counts and deaths in their countries.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207