MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7140300285 · doi:10.65301/ijcd.2015.5.1.5

Media and Environmental Discourse

2015· article· W7140300285 on OpenAlexaff
Dr. Shikha Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Communication Development · 2015
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappeningGlobal warmingAccident (philosophy)Indian oceanWorld War IINatural disasterFirst world war

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nepal Divested The series of earthquakes of around 7.8 magnitudes rumbled the entire city to wreckage with a distinct sense of déjà vu. An irreparable damage has been done. Countless death and injuries, millions of people rendered homeless. The beautiful valleys in the country obliterated. In the matter of the seconds, the “Land of Temples” lies quite in rubbles. The entire World is yet to come out of this stagger. With the speculations of more such strikes, a worldwide alert is declared. Not long back Japan faced almost the same story with the earthquake of magnitude 9.0 triggering tsunami, killing some 27, 500 people followed by a Nuclear catastrophe in the northeast Japan. The most devastating happening of the times after the Second World War pushed Japan back to the times of their past wreckage. Japan took hundreds of years to come out of that rubble and found itself in the same soup. With radiations levels soaring in the seawater near Fukushima environmentalists felt the ripples of it across globe. Global Warming has become the most talked about issue. On the 45th Anniversary of Earth Day, its imperative to open a serious discourse about the coverage of environment issues by the media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0160.027
Scholarly communication0.0260.019
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.371
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.077 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Communication DevelopmentSame topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207