MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7030265928

Någon som ser dig : en kvalitativ intervjustudie om skånska journalisters syn på lokaljournalistikens värde

2021· other· en· W7030265928 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJournalismCitizen journalismValue (mathematics)PhenomenonLocal communityPoliticsScope (computer science)Qualitative researchField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local and community journalism in Sweden has for the past decades been in an evident decline with great economical losses being reported year after year. This brings the question of the actual value produced by this kind of journalism. Studies on this phenomenon has been carried out through different methodical approaches with different conclusions and results throughout the world and in Sweden as well. This study aims to get an understanding of the actual value of local journalism perceived through the eyes of those who produce it by conducting interviews with said journalists and then to proceed with a qualitative analysis of the gathered data. To further narrow the scope of this study the all the interviewed reporters are from Scania. The gathered empirical data is then reviewed through theoretical perspectives such as participatory journalism, journalistic roles and ideals, ritual perspectives on journalism and media convergence. To further place this study in the field it also lists similar studies but in different geographical areas and with different methodical approaches. The findings this study does is that the local journalism in Scania is tightly connected to its community and that the very defining quality of its being is that of a local news outlet. It further shows that the interviewed reporters value their role as an educator of the public by local political coverage. However, the study has also invited the interviewed reporters to reason around how to maintain this value where numerous aspects such as participatory journalism, scrutiny, sense of community and ideals of public information were pointed out.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0190.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.011

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207