The biases of globalization discourse: a comparative study of the Mail & Guardian, The New York Times and The Toronto Star, in 1996 and in 2000/2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central tenet of this research was to develop an understanding of the globalization discourse as a vehicle to establish and maintain hegemonic power. Specifically, this study was aimed to analyze and compare the manufactured biases of such discourse through content analysis of newspaper articles--from the 'Mail & Guardian' from South Africa, the 'New York Times' from the United States, and the 'Toronto Star' from Canada. The research is based in the thesis that hegemonic ideology has been built by the corporate elite and is maintained and reinforced through news media by propaganda. The findings have, in fact, highlighted globalization as an all-pervasive discourse that responds to the existence of a concrete historical trend that would not be possible without it. Moreover, this study has presented us with a hegemonic globalization discourse that is masculine, institutionalized, Americanized and to which we have been told that 'there is no alternative'.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".