”Så här har vi gått tillväga” En kvalitativ studie av hur svenska undersökande journalister förhåller sig till transparens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: “Så här har vi gått tillväga” – En kvalitativ studie av hur svenska undersökande\njournalister förhåller sig till transparens\nAuthors: Michael Larsson and Rasmus Lygner\nSubject: Undergraduate research paper in journalism studies, Department of journalism, media and communication (JMG), University of Gothenburg\nTerm: Fall 2016\nSupervisor: Nicklas Håkansson, JMG, University of Gothenburg\nPages/words: 54 pages/19 485 words (including abstract and appendix)\nPurpose: The main purpose of the study is to examine how Swedish investigative journalists relate to the notion of transparency and apply it in their everyday work routine.\nMethod: Qualitative in-depth interviews with Swedish investigative journalists.\nProcedure: Seven interviews with investigative journalists were transcribed and analyzed using Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective, Michael Karlsson’s rituals of transparency and professional theory.\nResults: The results of the study show that although transparency have not been accepted as a new occupational norm by all investigative journalists, it affects their relationship with the audience and way of working.\nTransparency was associated with a wide variety of practices employed by investigative journalists – such as making source material public, getting the public involved in the news process or using transparency as a form of storytelling – and regarded as a way to enhance credibility with audiences. Furthermore, in some cases transparency was described as\nincreasing self-regulation among investigative journalists and being in conflict with the confidentiality of sources.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
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".