MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211076967 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14655993

The Politics of Media and 9/11

2021· preprint· en· W4211076967 on OpenAlexaff
Sari Klaczkowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)TerrorismAdversaryNews mediaPoliticsMedia coveragePolitical scienceMedia studiesMedia eventMedia biasMedia relationsMass mediaAdvertisingPublic relationsSociologyLawHistoryBusinessComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This MRP was inspired by my ongoing interest in the media’s role in educating the public about current events, specifically how the media’s coverage after the terrorist attack on September 11th, 2001 influenced their audience. The MRP focused on the broadcast news coverage the week after the terrorist attack and how the framing of the attack, influenced who the public’s understanding of who the enemy of the War on Terror. The MRP conducted a content analysis of FOX News and CNN’s 6:00 broadcast news coverage. The MRP found that the media had a tremendous influence over the public at this time and significantly contributed to their understanding of who the enemy was in the war. It also discovered the role that the Bush Administration had in framing the media’s agenda and they used broadcast television to push their own political agenda. The MRP will teach the reader about the overpowerful role the news media can have, especially in times of crises and how the media can shape and present news events to with significant bias. Winston Churchill once said that with great power comes greater responsibility. This MRP teaches about the great responsibility of the news media and how during the news coverage after the terrorist attack, they unfortunately, did not live up to.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207