Under-the-radar engagement: how and why news users limit their public expression
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
Abstract Beyond digital news consumption, users may express themselves in relation to the consumed news—for example, through commenting, sharing, or reacting. They may also limit what is termed here news engagement visibility, the extent to which a user’s involvement with news content can be seen by others. Drawing on privacy calculus theory and literature about engagement, avoidance, and relationship management, this study examines—through 50 in-depth interviews in Canada—how and why news users limit their news engagement visibility. It presents three ways for limiting this visibility, including lower expression volume, more private expression space, or more closed-ended expression type. Furthermore, it introduces the four P’s framework—protection, pointlessness, personality, and particularity—to explain the reasons behind limited news engagement visibility. The study advances the understanding of news engagement by suggesting that it involves the management of visibility boundaries and by elucidating barriers to public expression. The implications of these contributions are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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