Discourses on Communication Technologies in Canadian and European Broadcasting Policy Debates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been growing similarities between broadcasting issues in Canada and Europe. Some issues, including the emergence of private broadcasting and concerns about American broadcasting, became prominent in Europe decades after they were evident in Canada. In both contexts, historical and contemporary debates about broadcasting issues have been tied to three discourses on communication technologies. This article contends that broadcasting policy debates in Canada and Europe can usefully be interpreted through a theoretical model that addresses technological determinism, technological democracy and technological nationalism. The model places the discourses in the context of struggles between dominant agents (private companies, governments or supranational institutions) and subordinate agents (including various social movements). The model shows how connections between the discourses help to secure the hegemony of powerful groups. However, the model also identifies contradictions within the discourses and compromises involving the discourses. Both are associated with opposition from less powerful groups.
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 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".