MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296875189 · doi:10.21065/25205986.7.20

REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES IN URDU PRESS IN PAKISTAN

2022· article· en· W4296875189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
zara khalid

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Humanities and Social Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperUrduBlasphemyContent analysisRepresentation (politics)HistoryMedia studiesPolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceLawPoliticsLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fundamental goal of this research article was to investigate the coverage of minority groups in Urdu press of Pakistan. For this purpose, 1 Pakistani newspaper daily Jang Karachi and 1 weekly magazine Akhbar-e-Jehan was selected. 198 newspapers and 48 magazines were selected through systematic sampling from June 2020 to June 2021. It was found that 100 news stories were published in daily Jung while 10 news stories about minorities were published in Akhbar-e-Jehan, which means during the last year from June 2020 to June 2021, minorities have been represented only 0.404% in Daily Jang Newspaper and only 0.771% in weekly Akhbar-e-Jehan. For this purpose, a content analysis of selected news items were undertaken in which it was also found that 40% positive news and 60% negative news were published related to minorities of Pakistan in Daily Jung while 90% negative and 10 positive news were published in weekly magazine Akhbar-e-Jehan during June 2020 to June 2021. The research also revealed that the major problems which minorities are facing that is blasphemy allegations forced conversions etc. were not highlighted as it should be

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Humanities and Social SciencesSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207