MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084049396 · doi:10.2202/1935-6226.1052

Freedom of Expression and Shock Radio: Quebec CHOI-FM as a Case Study

2008· article· en· W2084049396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Political Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndividualismArgument (complex analysis)Expression (computer science)Freedom of expressionDemocracySymbol (formal)PopulismPolitical scienceFreedom of the pressSociologyDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)LawLaw and economicsPhilosophyHuman rightsLinguisticsComputer sciencePhysicsPoliticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the use of the concept of freedom of expression by a Quebec City radio station, CHOI-FM, in its dispute with the CRTC and in the court case of Sophie Chiasson before the Quebec Cour supérieure. Although freedom of expression is the main argument used by CHOI-FM in 2004 and 2005, our hypothesis is that this argument is mainly instrumental. Nevertheless, freedom of expression must be analyzed because it is a major symbol of democracy; it is linked with lively public debate and individualism. In this case, freedom of expression is also used in an attempt to lend respectability to populism and illicit discourse.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.310 · 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