Middle States Geographer, 2007, 40:10-21 SOURCING THE COVERAGE IN THE INVASION OF IRAQ: A COMPARISON OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN NEWS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: In the recent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, serious questions have arisen over truth claims made to justify the war and the reporting of these claims in the media. These include allegations about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq and possible links between Saddam Hussein’s regime and terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was some debate over the legitimacy of these claims and subsequent information from Iraq reveals that there were a number of inadequacies. The paper examines the extent to which American newspapers and their counterparts in Canada, India and the United Kingdom accurately presented information on Iraq to their readers during the build-up to the invasion and the extent to which the selection of sources played a role in the reporting. A content analysis of the specific claims was performed on articles published during the period between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Results were compared between American papers and their international counterparts, including a discussion of how the selection of sources influenced the discourse.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".