Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of the telecommunications policy environment in Canada. Like Milner's (2009) article on New Zealand, this paper offers insights on international approaches to telecommunications policy. Canada's telecommunications history reveals a mix of private and public sector investment in regionally-based service providers. Canada did not have a single, publicly owned telecommunications carrier as was the case in Australia. Liberalisation of the telecommunications marketplace encouraged the development of competing infrastructures, with cable companies (traditionally focused on broadcasting distribution) and telephone companies now both providing wireline and wireless, voice, Internet and television services. Competition for wireline services remains regionally based, while wireless providers compete nationally. Although competition is intense, the broadband and wireless markets are highly concentrated. Competition in these markets has not resulted in extensive consumer choice, low prices or innovative services. Most Canadian consumers have access to broadband connectivity, but uptake rates now lag other OECD countries, for services that are slower and more expensive than those available in many other locations. Mobile phone penetration in Canada is on par with that of developing nations. The paper explores the characteristics of Canada's telecommunication markets, discusses the policy environment and notes that government has not offered a vision of a digital future for Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".