Power plays and Olympic divisions: bilingualism and the politics of Canadian viewing rights at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been innumerable political debates around the world over the distribution of live sporting events in the digital era. Typically, these deliberations involve competing claims and interests associated with sport, commerce, cultural and broadcasting policies, and, at times, language rights. This article examines a recent debate in Canada over unequal access to live French-language coverage of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games that prompted several interventions by public authorities and francophone community organizations. These interventions were required precisely because of the economic structure of the broadcasting market and the historical conditions of Canadian broadcasting policy. Indeed, unlike other nations, the Canadian state has not enacted legislation to protect the ‘viewing rights’ of citizens to have access to live telecasts of sporting events of national significance in both official languages. The debate was significant, then, precisely because it revolved around a central political commitment of the state: the principle of bilingualism. Moreover, the deliberations underscored the historical tensions between the material interests of the sport–media complex and the viewing rights of Canadians to have access to telecasts of sport in both official languages, and, by extension, the constitutional language rights of citizens enshrined in the Official Languages Act (1969).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".