Viva la Nano-Revolución! A Semantic Analysis of the Spanish National Press

Science Communication

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 143-167

  Veltri, Giuseppe A ^a  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

codification; latent semantic analysis; nanotechnology; newspapers; Spain

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875317006     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547012440353     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson A.,Allan S.,Petersen A.,Wilkinson A.The framing of nanotechnology in the British Newspaper Press.Science Communication. 2005;27:200-220.
2. Bauer M. W.Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology. Dierkes Meinolfvon Grote Claudia, ed. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Routledge; 2000:157-178.
3. Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Bauer M. W.Gaskell G., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002a:.
4. Bauer M. W.,Gaskell G.Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Bauer M. W.Gaskell G., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002b:1-17.
5. Bauer M. W.,Gaskell G.Social representations theory: A progressive research programme for social psychology.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2008;38:335-353.
6. Best S.Baudrillard: A critical reader. Kellner D., ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 1994:41-68.
7. Castro P.,Gomes I.Genetically modified organisms in the Portuguese press: Thematisation and anchoring.Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior. 2005;35:1-18.
8. Chandler D.Semiotics: The basics. New York, NY: Routledge; 2002:.
9. Downs A.Up and down with ecology: The "issue-attention cycle.".Public Interest. 1972;28:38-50.
10. Special Eurobarometer 341: Europeans and biotechnology. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010:.
11. Fahmy S. S.,Wanta W.,Johnson T. J.,Zhang J.The path to war: Exploring a second-level agenda-building analysis examining the relationship among the media, the public and the president.International Communication Gazette. 2011;73:322-342.
12. Foltz P. W.Latent semantic analysis for text-based research.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 1996;28:197-202.
13. Friedman S. M.,Egolf B. P.Nanotechnology: Risks and the media.IEEE Technology & Society Magazine. 2005;24:5-11.
14. Gamson W. A.,Modigliani A.Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology. 1989;95:1-37.
15. Gaskell G.,Bauer M.,Durant J.Biotechnology in the public sphere: A European source book. Durant J.Bauer M.Gaskell G., ed. London, England: Science Museum Press; 1998:3-12.
16. Gaskell G.,Ten Eyck T.,Jackson J.,Veltri G.Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States.Public Understanding of Science. 2005;14:81-90.
17. Gauthier E.Social representations of risk in the food irradiation debate in Canada, 1986-2002.Science Communication. 2009;32:295-329.
18. Ghanem S.Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. McCombs M.Shaw D. L.Weaver D., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1997:3-14.
19. Gorss J. B.,Lewenstein B. V.The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association; 2005New York, NY; 2005.
20. Hellsten I.,Dawson J.,Leydesdorff L.Implicit media frames: Automated analysis of public debate on artificial sweeteners.Public Understanding of Science. 2009;19:590-608.
21. Janis I.,Fadner R.The language of politics. Lasswell H., ed. Boston: MIT Press; 1965:153-169.
22. Jiménez M.The environmental movement in Spain: A growing force of contention.South European Society and Politics. 2007;12:359-378.
23. Kim S. H.,Scheufele D. A.,Shanahan J.Think about this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public's evaluation of a local issue.Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 2002;79:7-25.
24. Kjærgaard R. S.Making a small country count: Nanotechnology in Danish newspapers from 1996 to 2006.Public Understanding of Science. 2010;19:80-97.
25. Kjølberg K. L.Representations of nanotechnology in the Norwegian newspapers: Implication for public participations.Nanoethics. 2009;3:61-72.
26. Krippendorff K.Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 2003:.
27. LanciaF. (2007). Word Co-occurrence and Similarity in Meaning. Retrieved, February2012, from http://www.mytlab.com/wcsmeaning.pdf.
28. Landau J.,Groscurth C. R.,Wright L.,Condit C. M.Visualizing nanotechnology: the impact of visual images on lay American audience associations with nanotechnology.Public Understanding of Science. 2008;18:325-337.
29. Landauer T. K.,Foltz P. W.,Laham D.Introduction to latent semantic analysis.Discourse Processes. 1998;25:259-284.
30. Lang G. E.,Lang K.The battle for public opinion: The president, the press, and the polls during Watergate. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1983:.
31. Lewis K.,Kaufman J.,Gonzalez M.,Wimmer A.,Christakis N.Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com.Social Networks. 2008;30:330-342.
32. McCombs M.,Ghanem S.Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Reese S. D.Gandy O. H.Grant A. E., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2001:67-81.
33. Morris C.Signs, language, and behavior. New York, NY: George Braziller; 1955:.
34. Moscovici S.Social representations: Explorations in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press; 2000:.
35. Nielsen T. H.Behind the color code of "no.".Nature Biotechnology. 1997;15:1320-1321.
36. Nisbet M. C.,Brossard D.,Kroepsch A.Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics.Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 2003;8:36-70.
37. Noelle-Neumann E.The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence.Communications Yearbook. 1990;14:256-287.
38. Popping R.Computer-assisted text analysis. London, England: Sage; 2000:.
39. Roberts C. W.A conceptual framework for quantitative text analysis on joining probabilities and substantive inferences about texts.Quality & Quantity. 2000;34:259-274.
40. Rogers R.,Marres N.Landscaping climate change: A mapping technique for understanding science and technology debates on the World Wide Web.Public Understanding of Science. 2000;9:141-163.
41. Salton G.Automatic text processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1989:.
42. Savaresi S. M.,Boley D. L.On the performance of bisecting K-means and PDDP. Paper presented at the First SIAM Conference on Data Mining; 2001Chicago, IL; 2001.
43. Scheufele D. A.,Lewenstein B. V.The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies.Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2005;7:659-667.
44. SteinbachM.KarypisG.KumarV. (2000, August). A comparison of document clustering techniques. Poster presented at the KDD 2000 Workshop on Text Mining, Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dunja/KDDpapers/Steinbach_IR.pdf.
45. Triunfol M. L.Dynamics of list-server discussion on genetically modified foods.Public Understanding of Science. 2004;13:155-175.
46. Wagner W.,Kronberger N.,Allum N.,De Cheveigne S.,Diego C.,Gaskell G., Stathopoulou A.Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Bauer M.Gaskell G., ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002:244-276.