Climate emergency in the Portuguese Parliament and in the media: a discursive approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The environment is ubiquitous in discourses of the public sphere in modern societies. Public discussions on this issue take place in parliaments, in scientific and activist forums, etc., and among policy-makers, but the media recontextualise the political discourse and try to influence political decisions. This paper focuses on environmental discourse, analysing the media treatment of the declaration of a climate emergency requested by some political parties in the Portuguese Parliament, in three Portuguese newspapers between 9 and 18 May 2019. It then compares this media treatment of the issue with a recent newspaper opinion article. The study adopts a discursive approach, aiming to identify the lexical transfer between the specialized discourse and the discourse of dissemination to the lay people, the modalisation operated by the journalist/mediator, the selection of the voices evoked, the articles’ didacticity and some of the rhetorical strategies adopted to persuade the reader.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".