Media and transnational social movements : a content analysis of The Globe and Mail's coverage of the 2009 Tamil protest in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By using theoretical frameworks of Medium theory and New Social Movement Theory, this study analyzed how The Globe and Mail news articles published from January to May 2009 depicted the transnational social movement efforts of the 2009 Tamil protest in Toronto. The method of content analysis was applied to the following research question: How do new articles from The Globe and Mail newspaper portray the transnational social movement (TSM) efforts of the Tamil Diaspora in Canada? This study found that (1) overall there was a negative coverage of the Tamil transnational social movement; and (2) the emphasis was mostly placed on the Tamil protest's alleged affiliation and support for a banned terrorist group. This paper will conclude that the news articles of The Globe and Mail presented a distorted message of the Tamil protest in the articles to attract readership rather than inform the audience, in a neutral method, about the protest events that were occurring at that time. Hence, future research should seek to expand on this study by doing a longitudinal and comparative analysis of the relationship between media and the Tamil transnational social movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".