Burying the Hatchet: Addressing Disproportionate Media Representations of Indigenous Missing and Murdered Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Television and newspapers possess a strong influence not only on the public perception of Indigenous marginalization, but also on the bi-directional relationship that the government possesses regarding policies that address the causes of inequity, racism, and the stereotyping of Indigenous groups in Canada. The foundations of oppressive action are established via the creation of social hierarchies that seek to label marginalized populations such as Indigenous peoples as “others.” The othering of Indigenous groups in Canada has been shown to lead to the perpetuation of structuralized racism and discrimination as an extension of underlying settler-colonialist ideologies. The concept of media framing is used in this article to interpret representations of Indigenous peoples on the national stage. Here, we explore the media’s justification when it makes decisions about the content of its news stories, and how Indigenous peoples involved in these reports have been presented to the public. These constructions have negatively skewed the perception of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples as they ignore or minimize Indigenous male victimization. This has led to their devaluation within mainstream media discourses. As members of families, men and boys play a pivotal role in the maintenance of family structures, and thus, investigating the causes for missing and murdered Indigenous men and boys (MMIMB) will offer greater insight into not only the framing of Indigenous issues in mainstream media but also into the ever-increasing incidence of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG).
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Analysis of news media framing of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples in Canada; the object is journalistic representation and public discourse, not the research system.
The article studies media framing of Indigenous missing and murdered people rather than research practice.
Media-framing analysis of Indigenous missing and murdered peoples; social media studies, not metaresearch.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".