The active recipient: participatory journalism through the lens of the Dewey-Lippmann debate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
News outlets are providing more opportunities than ever before for the public to contribute to professionally edited publications.Online news websites routinely provide tools to facilitate user participation in the news, from enabling citizens to submit story ideas to posting comments on stories.This study on participatory journalism draws on the perspectives of writer Walter Lippmann and philosopher John Dewey on the role of the media and its relationship to the public to frame how professional journalists view participatory journalism.Based on semi-structured interviews with journalists at about two dozen newspaper websites, as well as a consideration of the sites themselves, we suggest that news professionals view the user as an active recipient of the news.Journalists have tended to adopt a Deweyan approach towards participatory tools and mechanisms, within carefully delineated rules.As active recipients, users are framed as idea generators and observers of newsworthy events at the start of the journalistic process, and then in an interpretive role as commentators who reflect upon professionally produced material.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".