MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410915927 · doi:10.32920/29205812

<b>Have journalists skipped the ethics conversation when it comes to using AI?</b>

2025· preprint· en· W4410915927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Misri, Nicole Blanchett, April Lindgren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in journalistic work for everything from transcribing interviews and translating articles to writing and publishing local weather, economic reports and water quality stories. What’s lagging behind all this experimentation are the important conversations about the ethics of using these tools. This disconnect was evident when we interviewed journalists in a mix of newsrooms across Canada from July 2022 to July 2023, and it remains a problem today.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0170.017
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1160.066

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 head0.283
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and SocietyFrench-language works237,207