“Integral to the Plot, and in No Way Gratuitous”? Constructing Creative Freedom in the Liberalization of Canadian Content Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes proceedings of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council as a discourse on tensions between creative freedom and social responsibility. While scholarship on censorship emphasizes the productive and constructive dimensions of prohibitive regulation, this article explores the imbrications of a more permissive style of regulation and its targets. The council’s administration of various self-regulatory codes tends to limit the potential overreach of social responsibility provisions. In particular, its reading practices allow remarkable authority to the coherence and integrity of screen realities. Ultimately, this weight on the “realistic” suggests the discursive and institutional complexity of liberalization. Rather than a simple movement from active intervention to passive permission, or a simple recognition of an already-formed creative freedom, the council follows a particular construction of creative freedom— produced in readings that actively exclude specters of regulable irresponsibility, and that resonate provocatively with the “realism” mobilized in producers’ claims to creative status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".