What You Say Is What You Get: Policy Discourse and the Regulation of Canada’s First Domestic Communications Satellite System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the Canadian satellite-policy debates that occurred in 1969 prior to the passage of the Telesat Canada Act. This Act created a new corporation that would own and operate Canada’s first domestic satellite system. Various interest groups vied for control over satellites, using strategic rhetoric to influence how the system would be handled within policy circles. This rhetoric helped to simplify complex issues, limit options, and encourage consensus among policy actors that had very different ideas about the same technology. Key decisions included regulating satellites like microwave networks and labeling the new corporation a carrier’s carrier, natural monopoly, and public utility. In addition, the new corporation was to complement existing telecom networks and would not compete with them for business. The choices made about Canadian satellites thus were bound up with the ways in which this technology was conceived of and discussed, with far-reaching results for Canada’s industrial and communications policy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".