Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The 2003 deregulatory efforts by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have focused American media critics' and scholars' attention on the issue of media consolidation. Yet, at the same time, consolidation and audience fragmentation have also come to characterize the television industry in Canada. These two forces, in combination with sporadic efforts to preserve Canada's bifurcated French and British heritage, have forged the agenda for many Canadian television researchers during the last decade. By 2001, the three main Canadian private television networks had become completely integrated into large Canadian trusts. CTV, the largest television network in English-speaking Canada, is now owned by Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE), which grew out of the telephone business but is now involved in almost all the telecommunications sectors, as well as in dailies through a joint venture with The Globe and Mail, a Toronto-based national newspaper. In 2001, CanWest/Global, the number two network in the English speaking markets, acquired more than 200 titles from Conrad Black's newspaper empire--Hollinger Company. Finally, TVA, the number one broadcaster in the French-speaking television market, has become part of the Quebecor print empire with subsidiaries all around the world (Demers, 2000; Centre d'etudes sur les medias [CEM], 2003). In April 2003, the Canadian Senate Communications Committee initiated a formal inquiry into a series of broadcast issues which included concentration of ownership and convergence. But at the time, lan Morrison, a spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, noted that Canada had already developed the type of broadcast consolidation that was being met with so much resistance in the United States (Shinhat, 2003). In what may have been a belated reaction to the wave of transactions at the beginning of the new millennium, in July 2003, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC) blocked the transfer of control of a radio chain to Quebec's TVA Group because of concerns over concentration (CRTC, July 2, 2003). For its part, the public network, which includes the English language CBC and the French language Radio-Canada, has been losing ground to the private channels, both general and specialized, with regard to audiences since the early 1980s--a trend which has become more rapid in the last ten years. Now, during the most popular viewing hours, CBC attracts less than 10% and Radio-Canada less than 15% of their respective media audiences (Cauchon, 2003; Petrowsky, 2002). The major television networks attempt to appeal to general audiences but they now find themselves in an environment where the specialized networks and digital television--a service in which the CRTC approved the launch of 300 new channels in 2002--are collectively gaining audience every day. In addition, access through cable or satellites to the American channels has further fragmented the Canadian television market. For example, in the vicinity of Quebec City, where basic cable service penetrates more than 80% of the households, that basic service offers four French speaking general channels (SRC, TVA, TQS, and Tele-Quebec), along with five specialized ones (one all-news, one for infomercials, two community channels, and one on provincial parliamentary activities), three English-speaking Canadian channels (CTV, CBC, Global), four American channels, and a few service channels that provide such things as weather and classified advertisements. In such a fragmented environment, audience members have been using their remote controls to zap programming, which adds even more flux to the viewing dynamics. The fragmented and chaotic nature of this marketplace may explain why many researchers have apparently shied away from studying Canadian television, whose ability to exert control over its potential audience seems to have evaporated with the loss of its monopolistic structure. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».