MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Objectivity in Reporting

2015· other· en· W4232284370 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Communication · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectivity (philosophy)JournalismEthosNeutralityDemocracyPolitical scienceDictatorshipEpistemologySociologyEnvironmental ethicsLawPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of “objectivity” connotes a set of practices and ideas, such as a stance of → neutrality or → balance in relation to the people and events being reported. It is a central ethos in journalism, especially in the Anglo‐American liberal democracies (→ Ethics in Journalism). It is also acquiring global significance as journalists seek new roles and institutional supports within the “transition societies” of formerly communist and third world dictatorships. What objectivity means in practice, however, and whether it is a desirable and achievable goal for reporting in a democratic society are questions very much debated.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.310 · 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