MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386121599 · doi:10.1080/22041451.2023.2237811

De/Constructing the soft power discourse in Hallyu

2023· article· en· W4386121599 on OpenAlexaff
Kyong Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Research and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft powerPopularityKorean WavePopular culturePower (physics)Construct (python library)Nation brandingSocial mediaPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesAdvertisingPoliticsPublic relationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the discourse surrounding the transnational flows of South Korean popular culture, known as Hallyu (the Korean Wave), and its relationship to the country’s soft power through a discourse analysis of Korean news and social media. Specifically, the study explores how Hallyu was addressed as Korea’s soft power tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it gained even greater popularity overseas through digital means. The study questions how local cultural intermediaries, such as journalists, critics and YouTubers, have engaged with the Hallyu phenomenon. Although Hallyu is often considered a core component of Korea’s soft power, aimed at increasing its influence in overseas reception points, there is a lack of studies on the meanings of Hallyu as a discursive construct in the Korean mediascape. Therefore, this study explores how Korean news and social media perceive and represent the global circulation of their local cultural content.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication Research and PracticeSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207