“New Heights” in Storytelling?: Considerations for Cross-National Analyses of Broadcasters’ Social Media Coverage of the Paralympics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the 2022 Beijing Paralympic Games, rights-holding broadcasters in multiple countries promised record-amount of coverage, including on digital platforms. This paper analyzes how NBC and CBC, the broadcasters in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, utilized social media platforms during the Paralympic Games. We employed two methodological approaches. The first draws on agenda diversity literature to provide a quantitative, descriptive analysis of Paralympics-related posts, interactions with other accounts, and gender representations. The second approach draws on research on the televisual logic of digital media to identify and interpret presentation, sequence, and visualization patterns. Our multidimensional analysis found differences in the volume of Paralympics-related posts and the utilization of interactive elements, across the two broadcasters. The coverage on both accounts highlighted home-nation athletes and their competitions, which shaped gender representations and the rhythm of social media coverage. Both broadcasters followed established sequences of mega-events, with the exception of an international conflict. CBC relied primarily on one journalist to provide updates and curling-related recaps, while NBC directed audiences to watch sports where U.S. athletes succeeded. We discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of cross-national comparative coverage of the Paralympics.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it