Australian Public Broadcasting Under Review: The Mansfield Report on the ABC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been subject to a number of government commissioned reviews in its 68-year history, the most recent being that conducted by Bob Mansfield whose report was released in January 1997. The Mansfield Report, The Challenge of a Better ABC, comprises a brief 53 pages but contains a number of far-reaching recommendations for the role and functions of the Australian national broadcaster. This paper provides an examination of the Mansfield Review as a case study of a contemporary independent inquiry into a public service broadcaster. It analyses the content and recommendations of Mansfield's report, evaluates the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented, and assesses the current operations of the ABC to determine the impact of the Mansfield Review on the Corporation.
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 | 0.024 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.010 |
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".