MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571448659 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2001v26n1a1198

Australian Public Broadcasting Under Review: The Mansfield Report on the ABC

2001· article· en· W1571448659 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationPublic broadcastingBroadcasting (networking)Government (linguistics)Political scienceService (business)Public serviceSubject (documents)Library sciencePublic relationsBusinessLawComputer scienceMarketingComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.218 · 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