An ideological square analysis of the podcast discourse in “Chinese Dreams” of the BBC World Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employing the ideological square model (Van Dijk, 1998 Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary approach. Sage. [Google Scholar], 2000 Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A Multidisciplinary introduction. Pompeu Fabra University. [Google Scholar]), this article examines polarization strategies of positive and negative representations of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in ideological discourse on the rise of China by Western media. We analyzed discourse properties in the narratives of five podcast episodes of the BBC World Service about the Chinese Dream, one episode each on Australia, Canada, India, Indonesia, and Kenya. The results revealed prevalent negative representations of ‘them’ – emphasizing negative characteristics and de-emphasizing positive ones of China. However, discourse strategies of emphasizing positive characteristics about ‘us’ and de-emphasizing negative things about ‘us’ were only found in Australia and Canada. The podcasts hardly avoided discussing negative aspects of India, Indonesia, and Kenya. In doing so, the BBC’s ideological discourse excluded these countries from ‘us.’ Our study indicates that the ideological square approach is not only useful to elucidate discourses behind positive and negative representations of ‘us’ and ‘them’ but also can identify nuances in discursive construction of ‘us.’
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".