Rádios comunitárias: análise comparativa entre Brasil e Canadá.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Em comemoração aos 20 anos da Associação Mundial de Rádios Comunitárias (AMARC), surgiu a idéia de realizar uma análise comparativa entre as rádios comunitárias do Canadá, país no qual nasceu a Associação, e as do Brasil, que possui uma representação da entidade, a AMARC – Brasil. A AMARC é uma organização não-governamental que apóia a rádio comunitária, conforme os princípios de solidariedade e cooperação internacional, e que reúne cerca de 3000 membros em mais de 100 países, tendo todos os continentes representados em seu Conselho Internacional. Fundamentado em pesquisas anteriores realizadas pela autora sobre radiodifusão comunitária, este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar, sob enfoque comparativo, o movimento de rádios comunitárias nos dois países, em seus mais diversos aspectos, desde o seu conceito até informações sobre a legislação específica.Abstract: AMARC (World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters) is turning 20 Years old in 2003. Therefore, this comparative analysis between community radios of Canada, the country where the Association was born, and community radios of Brazil, a country that has a representation of AMARC, was done in celebration of the anniversary. AMARC is a non-governmental organization serving the community radio movement, according to principles of solidarity and international cooperation. It assembles about 3000 members in more than 100 countries and all continents are represented on its International Board. The present work is substantiated by previous searches conducted by the author about the theme and it intends to analyze, under a comparative focus, the community radio movement in both countries, in many aspects, from its very definition to information about specific legislation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".