MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1855201140 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2001v26n1a1201

Putonghua-Language Radio Programming in Hong Kong: RTHK and the Putonghua Audience

2001· article· en· W1855201140 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeffrey S. Wilkinson, Chen Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandarin ChineseGovernment (linguistics)Mainland ChinaBroadcasting (networking)ChinaChannel (broadcasting)MainlandAdvertisingPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceTelecommunicationsGeographyLinguisticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three months before the People's Republic of China regained control over Hong Kong, the government-sponsored media service Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) began offering Putonghua-language (Mandarin) programming. Since then, the channel has been broadcasting programs for three groups of people. These programs help Mainlanders assimilate to Hong Kong, help Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong people learn the language of the Mainland, and provide a means for overseas Chinese in Hong Kong to be exposed to the mother tongue and learn about what is happening in Mainland China. This paper examines the evolution of programming on RTHK through the first three years of operation. Putonghua Channel has experimented with various types of programs, using block programming/niche programming to meet the needs of RTHK's varied audiences. RTHK's Putonghua Channel is an example of government-sponsored public broadcasting that focused on language to deliver programming for the specific needs of specialized audiences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CommunicationSame topicMultimedia Communication and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207