Feminist Approaches to Journalism Studies: Canadian Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the orthodoxies of communication scholarship is that much of the gender-based differences between males and females with regard to experiences in newsrooms can be attributed to demographics. The discussion presented in this paper challenges this claim by comparing the findings of two national surveys that measured the professional progress of Canadian press and television journalists. The first survey was undertaken in 1975, and the second in 1995. While the historical evidence points to reductions in gender-based structural inequalities over time, it also identifies the continued presence of gender-based assumptions about how work and family obligations should be combined. Such assumptions, it is argued, help to foster and reproduce systemic biases in the newsroom culture that still resonate today in the journalism profession and which can be best understood as a manifestation of the meaning of gender at three levels: as a classifying system, as a structuring structure, and as an ideology.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".