Arab Citizens’ Contributions to Investigative Reporting: An Examination of Arabs' Awareness, Willingness, and Satisfaction Toward Citizen Investigative Reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation aims to measure Arabs' understanding of investigative reporting and willingness to engage in investigative reporting practices through a survey of 421 Arab citizens from countries that include the Eastern African, Northern African, Arabian Peninsula, and Fertile Crescent regions. It also aims to measure Arabs' understanding of gatekeeping and their willingness to serve as gatekeepers. Further, this dissertation emphasizes various hypotheses, including that increased investigative reporting would benefit the region's citizens and increase the quality of journalistic work. The gatekeeping theory fits into this dissertation because of the significant development of the news delivery process on social media in the Arab world. The findings reported that while respondents aged 34-41 exhibit a firmer grasp of investigative reporting, demographic variables like age, gender, education, and region don't affect their willingness to engage. Three factors (risk avoidance, check to power, and hardcore) form the reporting environment. Understanding investigative journalism significantly predicts a desire to participate in the industry, which is correlated with the belief that citizens' contributions enhance Arab journalism quality. Consequently, a predicted understanding of investigative reporting significantly correlates with a willingness to be involved in the industry. These findings shed light on how Arab citizens contribute to investigative reporting and its potential to increase journalistic quality in the Arab world. The findings suggest that the correlation between Arabs' interest in gate-watching and their interest in investigative reporting reflects their awareness of the active roles in the journalistic industry, such as monitoring media performance and uncovering hidden issues that might not be brought into the spotlight. Taken altogether, the findings supporting this study’s hypotheses suggest that Arabs (i.e., those not employed by a media organization) who better understand investigative reporting as a dynamic method of journalism are more likely to play the roles of gate watchers. This depicts the value of knowledge in promoting participatory media accountability and control mechanisms within Arab communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".