MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256389471 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14638614

The Local News Map : transparency, credibility, and critical cartography

2021· preprint· en· W4256389471 on OpenAlexaffabout
April Lindgren, Jon Corbett

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityTransparency (behavior)CrowdsourcingJournalismCitizen journalismData scienceGeographyCartographyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSociologyWorld Wide WebMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Widespread disruption has made tracking what is happening to local journalism in Canada a challenge. The Local News Map is a crowdsourced web-based mapping tool that invites the public to contribute information about local newsroom startups, closings, and service reductions/increases. As concerns mount about the future of local journalism, the map’s data are cited with increasing frequency and it has the potential to influence debate, policy, and other research. Taken at face value, the map is a straightforward tracking device. A critical assessment of the assumptions, decision-making, and biases underpinning the map, however, illustrates that nothing is ever quite that simple. Researchers have called for a more critical and reflective approach to the application of geographic information technologies to mapping. This article draws on theories of critical cartography to evaluate the Local News Map’s biases, limitations, and strengths with a view to enhancing its credibility as a research tool. Keywords : local news, mapping, local journalism, participatory mapping, crowdsourcing, critical cartography

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.187
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.187
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0140.058
Scholarly communication0.0310.020
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeographic Information Systems Studies→French-language works237,207→