Accountability in the commercial radio sector: Lessons from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most areas of public policy, where regulation is expected to exhibit transparency and accountability, evaluation is recognized as necessary. Broadcasting is no different. Nevertheless, recently published reports argue that a new evaluative approach for broadcasting processes and policies is required because past assessments are outdated and current methodologies are lacking in rigour. Using a mixed methods approach, which explores the use of formal evaluation methods, this study seeks to provide tangible data about 141 commercial radio stations having undergone radio licence renewals from 1997-2007. The objective of the study is to determine how and to what extent Canada’s regulation agency, the Canadian radio-television and telecommunications commission (CRTC), holds radio station owners accountable to the objectives of the Canadian legislation, regulations and policies, as well as broadcasters ’ conditions of licence. Although the CRTC has criteria to evaluate stations and has been moving toward streamlining in recent years, it is apparent that case by case approaches are still employed and discrepancies have taken place in providing sanctions to non-compliant stations. Results also demonstrate how the process lacks monitoring to uphold accountability. The study provides an example for all countries seeking to improve accountability in the communication sector as a whole.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".