MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407589791 · doi:10.1177/14648849251319196

Schizophrenia: Proportionality and erasure in Canadian news media

2025· article· en· W4407589791 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gavin Adamson, Liam Donaldson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournalism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErasureProportionality (law)PsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This mixed-method study analyzes reports related to schizophrenia in Canadian news media during the calendar year 2022 ( N = 237). The corpus was coded for tone, journalism sources and themes. Correlations between those elements were measured, and also compared against a baseline of random articles from the same database and time period. A variety of Welch’s t-tests suggest that news about this severe mental illness is negative in tone 63% of the time, and linked to themes of violence and criminality at twice the rate of the baseline corpus. Sources such as police, lawyers and others from the legal system dominate the articles by a wide margin in absolute and relative terms compared to the baseline. Organizational sources, such as advocacy groups, correlate to the minority of reports with a positive tone. Those living with schizophrenia or their families are quoted more frequently compared to the same kinds of voices in the baseline, but they do not result in positive tone. Political sources are under-represented in the corpus; reports related to the themes of resources and health care funding are coded at the lowest frequency. The data is considered in the context of journalism practice related to sourcing, its style guides and ethics guidance such as truth-seeking and proportionality, but also the post-structural theory of erasure as an explanatory gesture.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournalismSame topicCrime, Deviance, and Social ControlFrench-language works237,207