MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014594815 · doi:10.1177/1012690202037004025

The Global Sport Mass Media Oligopoly

2002· article· en· W2014594815 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Law, Jean Harvey, Stuart Christopher Kemp

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review for the Sociology of Sport · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntertainmentCompetitor analysisOligopolyGlobalizationAdvertisingMass mediaPromotion (chess)Convergence (economics)Public relationsTechnological convergenceDemocracyBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceMarketingEconomicsTelecommunicationsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current frenzy of megamergers and acquisitions creating giant media/entertainment conglomerates has been described in the sociology of sport literature as one of the key aspects of sport globalization processes now unfolding. In this literature three usual suspects are mostly pointed out: Disney, News Corp and AOL–Time Warner. This article argues that one must look beyond these in order to get a clearer picture of the emerging media/sport complex. By examining the corporate structure of six major media/entertainment conglomerates, this article reveals some of the intricacies of these holdings which unpack the ‘circuits of promotion’ being formed through media platforms and content convergence. Moreover, the analysis of these corporate holdings show how these competitors are also involved in several joint ventures that connect them together, thus forming a dense web despite their rivalries. The article concludes that unless democratic interventions are enabled at the national and global levels sport media consumers will remain easy targets of the global media/ entertainment oligopoly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review for the Sociology of SportSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207