Tyranny of Balance in News Increases Climate Change Denialism in Indonesian Society
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change denialism, the rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence about the negative impacts of human activities on the environment, is a significant hurdle in mitigating climate change.This study investigates the influence of communication factors on climate change denialism among 124 students in Cilegon, Banten.Factors examined include news immediacy, scientific communication competence, message tone, tyranny of balance, and message narrative.Multiple regression analysis revealed only the tyranny of balance in news reporting significantly impacted climate change denialism (p < 0.001).Other variables, including belief in conspiracy theory, news immediacy, science communication competence, message tone, and message narrative, had no significant effect.These findings underscore the crucial role of media bias in climate change denialism, particularly in the context of emerging, tropical, and island nations.Future research should scrutinize journalistic principles and mass communication about climate change denialism.However, the methodology has limitations, including a homogeneous student sample and potential recall bias, necessitating more diverse sampling and experimental methods in future studies.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it