MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183064643 · doi:10.82308/6487

Making Canadian music industry policy 1970-1998

2009· article· en· W2183064643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard L. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation is a history of the development of the Canadian federal government's music industry policies from about 1970 to 1998. Over this period the government undertook a number of significant initiatives that mark the emergence of the Canadian music industry as a distinctive object of federal policy. The resulting account is not a single, linear narrative but unfolds in three separate but related streams, based on the following policies: Canadian content quotas for radio, the Sound Recording Development Program (a funding program to support the production and marketing of sound recordings), and revisions to Canada's copyright regime, such as neighbouring rights and a home taping levy. Each of these policies has a distinct history, originating in different areas of government at different times. Together, they do not form a consistent whole as much as an overlapping set of separate "policy assemblages," incorporating distinctive policy instruments and particular configurations of the Canadian music industry. Drawing on Michel Callon's work on the construction of markets, the dissertation explores the various ways in which the Canadian music industry enters into cultural policy through its associations with other extant policy formations. Canada's music industry appears in various roles in this history – as a supplier of programming for broadcasters, as a sector comparable to other 'cultural industries' such as film production and book publishing, and as the representative of the rights of artists and creators. Finally, the dissertation examines the ways in which these conceptions begin to cohere through the efforts of government and the industry representati

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.230 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207