Citizen Journalism and Editorial Policies: A Case Study of The Trinidad Express Newspaper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p> Abstract The study investigates policies regarding the regulation and control of citizens’ content published by the Trinidad Express Newspaper. A qualitative approach was adopted for the undertaking of this study, which consisted of eight (8) individual semi-structured interviews inclusive of editors and journalists/reporters from the traditional newsroom. The study aimed to answer the following research questions (RQs): RQ1.What are the steps/procedures taken by traditional journalists/reporters in handling of citizen journalism? RQ 2. In what ways have the steps/procedures taken influenced the publishing of citizens’ information? Findings reveal while there are no specific policies geared toward the control of information shared by citizens, the Newspaper has been controlling the flow of information received from the public by implementing the official One Caribbean Media (OCM) Statement of Editorial Principles and Operational Guidelines which inform the work and conduct of those who are part of the production and delivery of news and other content across varying media platforms. More significantly, the study found the free flow of information by citizens negatively impacted the traditional print media. Further, the free flow of information on various media platforms encouraged traditional media (newspapers) to embark on the digitization of newspapers in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. </p>
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".