The construction of social imaginaries on terrorism in newspapers from Montreal and Guadalajara : a comparative study among three cultural groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since September 11, 2001, the social imaginaries on terrorism have changed. We propose that from 9/11 onwards, the discussion about terrorism has evolved considerably. In this investigation, we shall try to discover the social imaginaries on terrorism that ushered in the 21 st Century from 9/11 to March 11 th , 2004 (the attacks in Madrid); that's to say, how the discussion about terrorism changed from 11 th September, 2001 to 11 th March, 2004, and what strategies and discourses the media has constructed in order to make terrorism feel in some way like a domestic topic or, at least, closer to the community. The role of the mass media is relevant in the way in which it can determine what we understand about terrorism since the media itself proposes ways of reading and interpreting social realities. We consider that the social imaginary facilitates an exploration of the cultural appropriations of terrorism in societies such as the Quebecois and Mexican ones, and the relationship that these societies have established with their own people, in particular the kind of representations they have about themselves with respect to terrorism and the "others". By analyzing the discursive structures (frames and interpretive repertoires) in newspapers we seek to ascertain the social imaginaries that mass media (newspapers) construct on terrorism in Montreal and Guadalajara in an era that as we can see, the new world order is defined around the war against terrorism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".