Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report was prepared at the request of the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) to identify ways in which the enforcement powers of the ABA can be strengthened to enable it to deal more effectively with breaches of the Broadcasting Services Act (BSA). The report reviews the existing enforcement powers of the ABA, reviews the enforcement powers of several overseas broadcasting regulators, identifies limits in the existing enforcement powers of the ABA, and proposes several recommendations for enhanced enforcement powers. Section 3 of the report provides an overview of the ABA's current enforcement powers. The penalties for breaches of the BSA comprise a mix of criminal and administrative penalties. The most significant administrative penalties are the power to suspend or cancel a licence and the power to impose a licence condition. Section 3 also provides information in relation to ABA investigations into programming matters. Section 4 of the report discusses in detail problems with the ABA's current enforcement powers. Section 4 also contains an evaluation of the ABA's enforcement powers based upon strategic regulation theory. This theory advocates regulatory compliance as best secured by persuasion, rather than legal enforcement, based upon co-operation between the regulator and regulated entities. According to strategic regulation theory, the threat of punishment should take the form of a set of integrated sanctions which should escalate in severity in response to more serious contraventions of the law. When the existing ABA's enforcement powers are evaluated according to strategic regulation theory, it becomes evident the ABA does not have at its disposal the flexible range of sanctions upon which the theory is based. Section 5 of the report contains a review of the responsibilities and enforcement powers of broadcasting regulators in the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand. Section 6 proposes a series of reforms which have as their objective enhancing the enforcement powers of the ABA.
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".