MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738734130 · doi:10.7202/1040526ar

Brought To You by the Letters C, R, T, and C: Sesame Street and Canadian Nationalism

2017· article· en· W2738734130 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Matthew Hayday

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic broadcastingCompromiseCommissionPolitical scienceBroadcasting (networking)CorporationNationalismAmbivalencePublic administrationLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wildly popular educational program Sesame Street arrived in Canada during a key transitional period for Canadian broadcasting policy in the early 1970s. An American-made program, it was threatened with cancellation by stations seeking to meet their Canadian content (CanCon) quotas with the least possible financial cost. A heated debate that included public protests and lobbying ensued, involving the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC), the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the media, parliamentarians, parents and even children. Each group advanced their particular interests regarding the issue of Canadianizing television. Ultimately, the CBC provided a compromise solution with the Canadianization of Sesame Street, whereby a portion of the program’s segments would be replaced by Canadian-made material that aimed to provide messages about Canada for young children. This tumultuous debate and its ultimate solution reveal the ambivalent attitudes held by Canadians, private broadcasters, and even the CBC about both the CRTC’s Canadianization policies and the quantitative approaches used to meet its objectives. It also demonstrates the roles that activist groups and more established interests such as broadcasters have played in shaping Canadian broadcasting policy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207