Community Radio Development and Public Funding for Programme Production: Options for Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper originates in a wider research project funded by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland’s media research scheme.1 The project arose out of collaboration between community media practitioners and academics. The project sought to provide a comparative analysis of national ‘programme production schemes’ which are open to the community radio sector in other states. A key context for that research was the legislative requirement that the programme production scheme run by the BAI pay attention to the ‘the developmental needs of community broadcasters’. An additional context for the research was the criticism from within the sector that the BAI’s scheme was insufficiently attentive to the particular dynamics of community radio production. The key research objective that thus arose was to evaluate the ways in which other states link developmental goals to programme production funding for the community radion sector. In order to answer this question we evaluated the literature on ‘development’ of the sector and analysed the production schemes of five other states (Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, New Zealand) through a combination of interviews and document analysis. The present article will provide a review of the findings from that larger research project. Its key aim is to provide an evaluation of the ‘developmental’ aspects of the production schemes in those five other states and consider their relevance to the Irish scheme. To do that, we first present an overview of community radio in Ireland and the operation of the Sound and Vision production scheme. We then undertake a review of the literature on development of community media and the role of public policy therein. Following that we will present our key findings from the research into the developmental aspects of programme production schemes offering tentative suggestions for their adaptation in the Irish context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".