Considering Canadian Television: Intersections, Missed Directions, and the Prospects for Textual Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this special issue of CJFS/RCEC, we turn our attention a consideration of the cultural and artistic location of Canada. At first blush, there seems be nothing particularly revolutionary about this objective; is not as if represents a new medium, never before studied any great detail. We nod agreement with John Corner, who notes that there appears currently be both a strengthening and a widening of interest the study of different national contexts. According Corner, this has produced important results, including with the cultural character of (the development of its generic forms, its diverse connections with the changing terms of popular reality) rather than isolating itself off as a chronicle simply of technological change, corporate development and the growth (and perhaps erosion!) of national policy.1 With this mind, we wanted see how and what extent such engagements with were taking place Canada. Realizing that was impossible for a single journal issue span the range of methodological and theoretical approaches towards television, we believed a tighter thematic focus for this issue would produce the highest intellectual dividends. In considering different conceptual frameworks, we came realize that intersection offered a particularly useful theme for our purposes. This is not only because intersection represented the coming together of the two editors' shared research interests two different disciplines (communication and film) or a symbolic geographical point where the editors, located Ottawa and Nottingham, could meet. Instead, the theme sprang from our observation that this journal's mandate to promote scholarship on Canadian film and television is only half fulfilled when, as is the case historically, few contributions are devoted the cultural character of Canadian television. As a way partially redress this imbalance, we believed that would be productive consider the ways which film and intersect Canada. Judging by the positive response we received from members of the scholarly community our initiative and the quality of the submissions this particular issue, we believe this investigation provides some promising openings for the study of Canada. The Rumsfeldian absence of evidence of scholarship on Canadian is certainly not a problem limited CJFS/RCEC, which can only, after all, consider publishing essays that are submitted it. Instead, we have come realize that the problems that face the journal are symptomatic of a larger under-appreciation of the importance of studying Canada, which is apparent journals both communication and film studies. Although retains a considerable degree of influence on contemporary social, political and cultural life, Horace Newcomb's observation that most of us look at without ever really seeing it seems apropos when considering the dearth of scholarship on the subject Canada.2 This state of affairs usually rears its head whenever one tries assemble a reading package for a course module on Canadian and experiences the frustrating lack of materials that encompass the medium's extensive aesthetic, economic, and historical components. This fact caused us speculate as why this has been the case, ponder its consequences, and consider various points of contact for expanding the understanding of both media. In a distinctly Canadian fashion, the problems associated with the study of appear have been predicted by the authors of a Royal Commission report. In 1951, the authors of the Massey Commission's final report observed that Canada was in the proverbially happy position of having as yet no history.3 This sentiment was true from a particular nationalistic perspective. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".