Tuning in to Democracy: Community Radio, Free Speech and the Democratic Promise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historical record is rife with demonstrations of abuses that arise when governments and leaders exploit information and communication channels.The excesses and horrors of the 20th century have revealed how press systems have been utilized to spread dangerous propaganda, instigate conflict, and promote the abuse of human rights.History has witnessed governments manipulating information to control the aware- ness of their citizens, imposing restrictions on diversity and choice, and effectively closing avenues for citizens to seek redress or air grievances.Guarding against such offenses, at the very least, requires a democratic understanding of free speech and press, a dedicated civic journalistic body, and a public service oriented media system.It would logically follow that countries that endorse the value of democratic governance regard information and communication as essential human rights to be protected and upheld.Given this understanding, what does it mean when in one of the most authoritarian and repressive regimes, a small independent press promot- ing democracy could-with difficulty-survive and flourish, and in the alleged democratic leader of the world, a major independent outlet promoting free speech, expression, and diversity was almost crushed?What does this say about the connections between democracy, free speech, and communication?Analyzing the experiences of two media outlets within two contradicting social systems illuminates a definite break between the theories and ideals of democracy and the reality of their application in the realVolume 20, 2004
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".