Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, the government passed Bill C-55 (Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act), a measure that allows foreign magazine publishers to sell advertising in copies of their magazines sold in Canada. The legislation arose from a 1997 ruling by the World Trade Organization that previous measures designed to protect magazines--Bill C-103, Tariff Item 9958 and concessionary postal rates--were illegal under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). As it was initially drafted, C-55 was designed to prevent foreign publishers from selling ad space in Canada; however, concerted pressure from the United States, including threats of trade retaliation, led to a substantial alteration of the bill. While many attributed Canada’s failure to protect its domestic magazine publishers to a lack of political will, this thesis argues that the events of the late 1990s were preordained. The chief factor identified is the failure of successive federal governments, starting in the 1920s, to recognize the importance of formulating a policy on magazines. Because there was no overall policy framework regarding the preservation of magazines, some disastrous decisions were made. One, in particular, was the failure of the government to act in 1943 when Time and Reader’s Digest started publishing Canadian editions. The author contends that international events also played a part in the Canada’s loss of its ability to protect domestic magazines, citing the rise of transnational media organizations in the nineteenth century, the enshrinement of the principle of free flow of information in the Unesco charter of 1947 and the inapplicability of Ricardian economic theory, the underpinning of the GATT, to cultural products such as magazines. The thesis offers a case study of how successive governments failed on a variety of levels and over a number of decades to create a sustainable, defensible mechanism to foster and protect a vital means of cultural transmission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.066 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".