MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254276476 · doi:10.1177/1329878x0913200106

How the Camel Got in the Tent: The Canadian Assault on Australia's Foreign Media Ownership Limits

2009· article· en· W2254276476 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marc Edge

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia International Australia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperPolitical sciencePoliticsVotingForeign ownershipAdvertisingBusinessLawForeign direct investment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before 1991, Australia enforced strict limits on foreign ownership of licensed broadcasters and also limited foreign ownership of newspaper publishers. In the early 1990s, however, a pair of Canadian entrepreneurs succeeded in first raising and then circumventing those limits. Conrad Black bought 15 per cent of the Fairfax newspaper chain in 1992, and shortly before the ensuing national election lobbied to increase his stake to 25 per cent. In his 1993 autobiography, Black described backroom political dealings that resulted in a Senate inquiry. The Australian Broadcasting Authority soon began an investigation into another Canadian challenging the country's foreign media ownership limits. Israel ‘Izzy’ Asper, a former tax lawyer, found a way to legally purchase 57.5 per cent of Network Ten in 1992 by holding 42.5 per cent in the form of non-voting debentures. The ABA absolved his CanWest Global Communications of controlling Network Ten in 1995. Non-voting shares were outlawed in 1997, but CanWest was allowed to retain its debentures. The inquiries into Canadian purchases contributed to a decade-long process of re-evaluating media ownership limits that resulted in restrictions on foreign ownership being eliminated in 2006.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0370.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedia International AustraliaSame topicIsland Studies and Pacific AffairsFrench-language works237,207