MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1768536602 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n2a2501

Of Logos, Owners, and Cultural Intermediaries: Defining an Elite Discourse in Re-branding Practices at Three Private Canadian Television Stations

2012· article· en· W1768536602 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Christopher Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Identity and Reputation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsBroadcasting (networking)IntermediaryAdvertisingScholarshipEliteCommercial broadcastingPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyLogos Bible SoftwarePublic broadcastingBusinessMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article explores the relationship between local television stations and national networks through a careful study of station re-branding. The relationship is explored through case studies of the three privately owned English-speaking television stations in Winnipeg, Canada. Through in-depth interviews with station and network executives, the author investigates the critical factors that facilitated the re-branding of Canada’s private television networks between 1997 and 2005. This period saw many English-speaking television networks unite their respective affiliate stations under a single logo and brand. Influenced by branding theory and scholarship on Canadian broadcasting, this article examines the shift away from local identification in Canadian broadcasting and the benefits, challenges, and resistances therein.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0280.034
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicCorporate Identity and ReputationFrench-language works237,207