MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543544451 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n2a2494

Promotional Prime Time: “Advertainment,” Internal Network Promotion, and the Future of Canadian Television

2012· article· en· W1543544451 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kyle Asquith, Alison Hearn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Gender, and Advertising
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime timePromotion (chess)Prime (order theory)AdvertisingPoliticsExploratory researchContent analysisPhenomenonPolitical sciencePrime ministerSociologyExploratory analysisCommercial broadcastingTelevision industryMedia studiesPublic relationsBusinessSocial scienceLawPublic broadcastingComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Drawing on critical cultural theory, the industry trade press, and an exploratory content analysis of prime-time television, this article examines the under-researched phenomenon of “internal network promotions.” The authors argue that internal promotions constitute a central component of the growing promotional orientation of Canadian prime-time television. They provide a theoretical overview of the practices of branding and a general description of the rise of “advertainment” on Canadian television. They then focus on the ways in which internal network promotions comprise a taken-for-granted “branded” backdrop against which television content, already heavily infiltrated by promotional interests, is mounted. The article concludes with a call for more research into the promotional nature of Canadian prime-time television and its social, political, and cultural implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicMedia, Gender, and AdvertisingFrench-language works237,207