ANALISIS FRAMING TERHADAP PEMBERITAAN ISU PRESIDEN TIGA PERIODE PADA PORTAL MEDIA ONLINE KOMPAS.COM DAN REPUBLIKA.CO.ID
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jurnal ini berfokus pada framing pemberitaan mengenai isu Wacana Presiden Tiga Periode, dengan bertujuan untuk melihat serta mengkritisi framing pemberitaan Pada Portal Media Online Kompas.com dan Republika.co.id Edisi bulan Maret 2002. Metode penelitian dalam penelitian ini yaitu menggunakan pendekatan konstruktivisme dan jenis penelitian analisis framing Zhongdang Pan dan Gerald M. Kosicki dengan empat perangkat framing yaitu sintaksis, skrip, tematik, dan retoris. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa, pembingkaian yang dilakukan Kompas.com terhadap berita mengenai isu Wacana Presiden Tiga Periode yaitu Kompas.com berupaya menempatkan diri sebagai media yang mempertahankan objektivitas dalam penulisan berita isu Wacana Presiden Tiga Periode, walaupun masih adanya sedikit terlihat kecenderungan Kompas.com dalam memberi porsi lebih kepada narasumber kontra Presiden tiga Periode, Sedangkan pembingkaian yang dilakukan Republika.co.id yaitu, Republika.co.id secara gamblang menggiring pembaca memaknai isu Presiden Tiga Periode sebagai suatu wacana yang ditolak oleh banyak Tokoh dan masyarakat. Republika.co.id berupaya mengarahkan pembaca pada penolakan terhadap Wacana Presiden Tiga Periode.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.030 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".