Platform paradoxes and public service media legitimacy: a cross-national study
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
The intricate relationship between public service media (PSM) and social media platforms has emerged as a critical factor significantly impacting the legitimacy of the PSM institution. This study adopts a discursive institutionalism lens to examine how six PSM organizations across Europe, Australia and Canada communicate their relationship and ideas about social media platforms via their annual reports over a 10-year period (2013–2022). Annual reports provide valuable insight into PSM organizations’ discursive processes that are aimed at generating (and justifying) public and political support. The analysis uncovers a complex and at times contradictory set of discourses revolving around audience attention and interaction, editorial integrity, and digital safety. While building platform presence is portrayed as crucial for sustained reach and relevance, PSM organizations also position themselves as counterweights to negative platform influences within the national media ecology. We observe a shift towards increasingly risk-oriented platform narratives over time, particularly concerning Facebook, resulting in a more deliberate social media strategy among some PSM organizations, and even disengagement with the platform.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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