Canadian Journal of Media Studies, Vol. 5(1) 24 Covering Democracy: The coverage of FPTP vs. MMP in the Ontario Referendum on Electoral Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ballot box is central to democracy. On election day in Canada voters are exhorted to make their way to church halls, school rooms and community centres to take a sheet of paper with a list of names in alphabetical order, stand behind a u-shaped piece of cardboard and make an “x ” beside the candidate of their choice. When the votes are counted the candidate with the most votes takes his or her seat in the legislature. In the past few years Canadians have begun to consider if this single member plurality system (SMP), also called “first-past-the-post”, is best suited to providing good governance. To engage the public in this debate, the mass media plays a critical role. How the media frames the electoral options for its readers, viewers and listeners, shapes the debate and ultimately impacts on the outcome. The way the media sets the agenda and the extent of the coverage will influence an electorate that is highly dependent on the media as it considers how to vote. Because referendums are rare in Canada, the role of the media is even more critical in informing voters about the issue. On October 10, 2007, Ontario became the third province to hold a referendum on electoral reform. How did the media cover this referendum? Was the debate presented in a full and balanced manner that provided the voter with enough information to make a thoughtful choice? Until recently consideration of electoral reform in Canada has been the subject of academic papers and discussions with the occasional article in the opinion pages of newspapers debating the so-called “democratic deficit”. The new millennium brought with it a flurry of reports considering ways to reform the country’s electoral system. The reports completed so far have endorsed some form of proportional representation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.004 |
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".