Licence and Poetic Licence: A Critical Examination of the Complicated Relationship Between the CRTC and Specialty Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialty channels in Canada earn revenues from cable carriage that are rarely commensurate with their audience size. These revenues are potentially so lucrative that prospective operators often make unrealistic promises to the CRTC regarding the channels’ original and Canadian content. In exchange for these promises, the Commission limits competition among specialty channels. Once a licence is obtained, however, specialty channels quickly attempt to extricate themselves from their burdensome promises in order to maximize profits and establish stronger advertising revenues. In some cases, specialty channels attempt to redefine themselves in ways that depart significantly from their original promises. Specialty channels can improve their chances of securing changes to their licences through strategically timed applications. In a misguided attempt to promote Canadian programming and curb the dominance of American broadcasters, the CRTC is not allowing specialty channels to properly prepare for a future that may not include lucrative revenues from cable subscription fees.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".