MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Canadians Communicate III: Contexts of Canadian Popular Culture

2010· book· en· W2752698198 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAthabasca University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopular cultureSociologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D a vid Tara s other factors and conditions to determine how we use and give meaning to popular culture.The book raises critical issues about our uses of myths and stereotypes, how we define beauty, how we deal with our darkest visions, the role of violence in society, how culture is used both to enforce and to push the boundaries of convention and social control and how we express our many identities.The hope is that Contexts of Popular Culture will both illuminate this complex and multi-textured landscape, and become a catalyst for research and discussion.Contexts of Popular Culture is a joint undertaking between Athabasca University and the Alberta Global Forum (agf) at the University of Calgary.The volume emerged out of a conference that brought the authors together for farreaching discussions and exchanges on the emerging trends and meanings of popular culture.We are grateful to the editors, Bart Beaty, Derek Briton, Gloria Filax, and Rebecca Sullivan, for selecting the contributors, for mapping the intellectual terrain, for being exceptional hosts, and for carrying the project through to completion with the highest professional standards.We owe a special debt to Toby Miller, who came as the CanWest Global Visiting Scholar, for providing leadership, congenial company, and stimulating ideas.Gina Grosenick did much of the organizing work with her usual combination of efficiency, smarts, and good cheer.The goal of the agf is to act as a bridge between the University of Calgary and the community by sponsoring and participating in discussions of critical issues and by undertaking focused research and community partnerships.The agf takes great pride in its partnership with Athabasca University and would like to thank President

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.199 · 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