Hudvårdstrenden : En kritisk diskursanalys om medias skildring gällande barns konsumtion av avancerad hudvård
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study contains a critical discourse analysis of media's portrayal of children's consumption of advanced skincare. The purpose of this study is to analyze how the discussion about children's skincare consumption is portrayed in the news media, and identify discursive patterns and themes based on the textual content of the articles. The analysis concerns eight articles from varied news media, which has been analyzed based on Norman Fairclough's three-dimensional model. To carry out this analysis, the study is based on two questions. These are about how children's skincare consumption is portrayed in news articles, as well as which patterns we can identify in how children's skincare consumption is represented in media. The conclusions we can draw based on our critical discourse analysis is that the media presents this discussion as problematic, as we have been able to identify discursive themes that strengthen and clarify the content of the articles. We have also seen an interplay and recurring patterns in the material's textual content, where we can, among other things, identify the same words and structure in the articles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".