MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409487520 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2025v21n1a1473

Kingdon-Khan Model: Acknowledging the Role of Media, Public Opinion, and Social Movements in Agenda-Setting

2025· article· en· W4409487520 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farid Ullah Khan, J. M. Smith, Frauke Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic opinionSocial movementSocial mediaPolitical scienceSociologyPublic relationsMedia studiesLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes the Kingdon-Khan Model (KKM) as an extension of John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Model (MSM) of agenda setting. While the MSM is comprehensively used to explain how issues reach policymakers’ agendas, it underrepresents the influence of media, public opinion, and social movements on agenda setting. To address this limitation, the KKM introduces a fourth “social stream” encompassing these interrelated societal forces. Drawing on empirical research on media, public opinion, social movements, and public policy, the authors conceptualize components of social stream and its interactions with the problem, policy, and political streams. The authors illustrate the KKM’s utility through examples of the Black Lives Matter and Pro-Palestinian movements. The KKM enhances the MSM’s explanatory power by accounting for the complex, multidirectional forces influencing contemporary agenda setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207