Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a mixed method was used to understand metajournalistic discourse on TikTok. Using convenience sampling, 30 journalists active on TikTok were selected and all their available 3270 TikTok videos were manually content analyzed. To understand these videos, a codebook was designed in which 5 major categories were identified as follows: 1. Educational news production; 2. News sharing/live reporting; 3. Personal anecdotes & opinions; 4. Interactions with audience; and 5. Dancing & challenges. In general, metajournalistic discourse on TikTok revolve around employing educational tips, entertainment, creativity, and music to engage and interact with wider audiences. To complement the study and gain a deeper understanding of journalism practice on TikTok, 17 journalists active on TikTok were interviewed mostly by email. Using thematic analysis, four major themes emerged from the interviews including personalized content, effective algorithms, audience outreach, and TikTok as a newsroom.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".