Framing Analysis of the South China Sea News Conflict in the Malay Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the South China Sea conflict involving countries in the region. However, it is not limited to those bordering the South China Sea because other superpower countries are also involved, such as the US, Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia, India. The conflict garnered serious attention from Malay media such as kompas.com (Indonesia), bharian.com.my (Malaysia) and mediamediapermata.com (Brunei). This study sought to inspect how Malay media frame the South China Sea conflict using a qualitative-descriptive approach. Using Entman’s model, it focused on root causes, problem causes, moral judgments, and recommendations. As a result, the three media saw China's claims to the South Sea and its abundant natural resources as the root of the problem. Bharian.com.my added that another root of the problem is China's hegemony in the South Seas. For causes of the problem, they agreed on China’s over-aggression and their patrol warships in the South China Sea. In addition, kompas.com and bharian.com added China's policy requiring foreign ships to report if they pass into the South China Sea. Furthermore, kompas.com also saw the different interests of ASEAN countries and the formation of the AUKUS alliance as the cause of the problem. In terms of moral judgments, they agreed on the need to maintain peace, order and security in the South China Sea. As for the recommendation aspect, they encourage compliance with UN conventions. Then, kompas.com and bharian.com.my also considered the importance of diplomacy at the negotiating table.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".