Freezing out: Legacy media's shaping of AI as a cold controversy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mainstream coverage of artificial intelligence often appears to emphasise the technologies’ benefit and economic potential over its growing downsides. How does a technology poised to be so disruptive become so uncritically embraced? Why is it, simply put, that artificial intelligence's representations in legacy media do not normally convey the controversialities otherwise found in research or policy debates? We introduce the concept of ‘freezing out’ to describe processes of translation that cool down debates over the merits of technology. Freezing out looks at the other side of controversy studies to study the production of uncontroversies or cold controversies rather than hot topics and debates. We use the coverage of artificial intelligence in Canadian national news outlets to analyse how controversiality becomes ‘frozen out’. Since Canadian academics won the prestigious ImageNet prize in 2012 introducing the modern turn toward machine learning approaches, Canada has promoted itself as a global leader. Using in-depth interviews with Francophone and Anglophone journalists as well as topic modelling on data collected from five major newspapers, we find that routine news making processes between journalists, experts, entrepreneurs, and governments build, maintain, and promote Canada's artificial intelligence ecosystem. Freezing out contributes to a broader interest in how heterogeneous actors traverse their domain of expertise across policy, media, and research circles to cool down artificial intelligence controversies.
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 | 0.018 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.051 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".