MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410320589 · doi:10.1080/15456870.2025.2501798

Leveraging natural language processing (NLP) to understand media framing of Lyme disease

2025· article· en· W4410320589 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtlantic Journal of Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceLyme diseaseLinguisticsMedicineHistoryVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research demonstrates that media frame our understanding of health-related issues. This study leverages Natural Language Processing (NLP) to explore how media in five nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, and the United States) frame Lyme disease. The results showed that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had the most media coverage of Lyme disease. Second, sentiment analysis demonstrated differences in overall sentiment among the outlets. VADER identified a balance between neutral sentiment in article titles and positivity in article content, while BERT revealed high negativity in titles and content. Third, key frames varied across the media, demonstrating the differing focus of each outlet.

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 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.319 · 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