MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323569782 · doi:10.3390/tourhosp4010009

Discourses of Fear in Online News Media: Implications for Perceived Risk of Travel

2023· article· en· W4323569782 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kelley A. McClinchey, Frédéric Dimanche

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism and Hospitality · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)TourismNews mediaAdvertisingScholarshipNarrativeContext (archaeology)Social mediaThematic analysisPolitical scienceAnxietyPublic relationsSociologyPsychologyBusinessGeographyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the role of Canadian online news media in framing travel during the pandemic. The article applies Altheide’s concept of the problem frame to reflect how news media contribute to the emergence of a highly rationalized problem that, in turn, generates a discourse of fear. While the impacts of COVID-19 on tourism have been extensively examined within tourism scholarship, less attention has been devoted to the impact of news media. Because travel and the pandemic are heavily intertwined, discourse analysis can help process media narratives, furthering our understanding of their role in influencing perceived risk of travel. A critical discourse analysis of over 100 online news articles was conducted using thematic analysis to uncover themes in Canadian media sources and to explore how the media have framed travel during the pandemic. The role of online news media in promoting fear was communicated through the themes of anxiety, antitrust, avoidance, and animosity. The role of the media in producing the problem frame in the context of travel was examined as well as its implications for perceived travel risk and tourism demand. The power dynamics between media, government, and the citizens it serves are also discussed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism and HospitalitySame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207