MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555309467 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n4a2621

Exporting the Public Value Test: The Regulation of Public Broadcasters’ New Media Services Across Europe

2012· article· en· W1555309467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Potschka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Value (mathematics)AdvertisingPublic valueBusinessPolitical sciencePublic relationsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public service broadcasters across Europe are venturing into the digital world, launching niche TV channels, building extensive websites, developing commercial services, entering into partnerships with external actors, and exploring new ways to reach users, whether its through smart phone apps or screens in public spaces. Such endeavours intensify fundamental discussions about what we need public service media institutions for. These are complex discussions, building on history, encompassing new technology, and involving a range of strong stakeholders. Recently, the so-called public value test has emerged as the focal point for these discussions. As a detailed regulatory scheme to measure the public worth and possible market impact of planned publicly funded media services, the public value test is causing controversy across Europe. This collection of short essays from academics, regulators, public broadcasters and private media representatives, provides thought-provoking perspectives on the state of play of public value tests in a range of European states. In so doing, the book is a topical intervention in the ongoing debate about the future of our media systems.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.024
Scholarly communication0.0210.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicMedia Influence and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207