MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412960037 · doi:10.55529/jmcc.51.11.19

Examining the role of headlines in news framing

2025· article· en· W4412960037 on OpenAlexaff
Arpita Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Media Culture and Communication · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
FundersUniversity College Dublin
KeywordsHeadlineFraming (construction)NarrativeMedia studiesPoliticsPerceptionNews mediaSociologyPolitical scienceHistoryAdvertisingLawPsychologyLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the role of headlines in the framing of news articles in print media, analyzing how they act as pivotal tools in shaping public interpretation and perception. Drawing on the theoretical foundation laid by scholars such as Entman, Baden, and Parenti, this research highlights the influence of headline language, tone, and accompanying visuals in constructing a narrative. The study focuses on two case examples from Indian national dailies: The Times of India and The Telegraph. Through qualitative analysis, it reveals how headlines not only serve as attention-grabbing hooks but also reflect editorial intentions and sociopolitical leanings. The headline "Donald Trump’s Death" by TOI exemplifies linguistic play used for brand impact, while "It took 79 days for pain and shame to pierce into 56-inch skin" by The Telegraph illustrates emotional and political framing through satire and cultural reference. This paper argues that headlines, though often underestimated, operate as self-contained frames capable of influencing news reception, reader engagement, and even shaping political discourse. The findings prompt a reevaluation of the journalistic function of headlines, positioning them as critical elements of media framing theory.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 venueJournal of Media Culture and CommunicationSame topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207