Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Brunswick was at the forefront of the diverse, unruly, and fiercely competitive free press of Canada’s Confederation era. Yet today over thirty newspapers of various types operate in New Brunswick, virtually all of them owned by the Irving interests. In the case of the proposed sale of NB Power to Hydro-Quebec, this essay notes that the Irving press applauded the proposed lower power rates for large industrial users, including major Irving-owned industry. With minimal competition in New Brunswick’s media sector, this appeared to commentators as a conflict of interest. This essay will argue that the Irving media monopoly muffles debate in the province and that it is time to let in some fresh air through a modern, diverse, and competitive free press. Resume Le Nouveau-Brunswick a ete a l’avant-garde d’une presse libre diversifiee, irreverencieuse et extremement concurrentielle pendant l’ere de la Confederation du Canada. Toujours est-il qu’aujourd’hui, plus de trente journaux de divers genres sont publies au Nouveau-Brunswick, et presque tous appartiennent a Irving. Dans le cas de la vente proposee d’Energie NB a Hydro-Quebec, cet essai signale que les journaux appartenus par Irving rendaient hommage aux tarifs d’electricite plus bas proposes aux grands consommateurs industriels, y compris d’importantes entreprises appartenues par Irving. Etant donne qu’il y a tres peu de concurrence dans le secteur de la presse au Nouveau-Brunswick, les commentateurs estimaient que la nouvelle semblait etre un conflit d’interet. Cet essai propose que les medias monopolises par Irving etouffent les debats dans la province, et qu’il est temps de laisser entrer une bouffee d’air frais par l’entremise d’une presse libre moderne, diversifiee et concurrentielle.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.013 |
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".