MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391613747 · doi:10.1080/17524032.2024.2306580

Whose Authority Drives the Narrative?: Framing the Spread of Mountain Pine Beetle in Canadian News Media

2024· article· en· W4391613747 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Communication · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)NarrativeMountain pine beetleMedia studiesPolitical scienceGeographySociologyArtLiteratureForestryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change is facilitating the expansion of biorisks (invasive species, viruses, diseases) into new environments. While news media are a key site where expert authorities communicate about risks in the public sphere, there is limited understanding of how media narratives change as biorisks spread into new areas. We use mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) in Canada as a case study to examine how narratives in media coverage evolved as outbreaks intensified and spread eastward. Medical narratives were more common in British Columbia, where the beetle is endemic, and war narratives were more common in Alberta, where the beetle spread and is considered a “native invasive” species. Narrative framing in both places was driven by journalists, while quotes by authoritative sources lent support to journalistic framing. These findings demonstrate that affective narrative frames are widespread in environmental crisis communication and that framing of crises changes dynamically based on geographic context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it