Bibliographic record
Abstract
As people increasingly use social media as a primary news source, it becomes critical to understand how online platforms affect peoples' experience of the news. Through the media effects of agenda-setting and framing, different news sources can vary in their influence on public opinion regarding which issues people consider important and how particular aspects of these issues should be interpreted. However, little is known about how issues and frames shift and segregate across partisan lines as traditional news on social media gets filtered by the selective exposure effects of social media. In this study, we investigate the issues and frames invoked in news article shares across Reddit over 16 years and measure their traditional media and social media partisanship. We measure the change between production (news articles posted on Reddit) and consumption (news articles posted on Reddit, weighted by their score). We find that issues are shared in a co-partisan manner across traditional media and social media lines. Issues are also more polarized in social media than traditional media and more polarized in consumption than production. We find that frames across several issues are also subject to co-partisan sharing behavior. In contrast to the significant polarization of news outlets on Reddit in 2016, issues and frames do not polarize more over time. Finally, looking at case studies of frames within specific issues, we disaggregate the shift from production to consumption by distinguishing between issues where the frames polarize and issues that simply receive less exposure on one side of the political spectrum. Our results give insight into broader phenomena like political polarization by highlighting the dimensions of precisely what polarizes and how polarization occurs. Overall, our study showcases the importance of understanding how social media distorts the perception of the news via its agenda-setting and framing functions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".