News as Hazardous Waste: Postmedia, the Competition Bureau, and the Supreme Court of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In early 2015, a few months after Postmedia Network, Canada’s largest newspaper company, purchased 175 Sun Media titles from Quebecor Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a landmark decision. It allowed the purchase of one hazardous waste company by another because the Competition Bureau, which had blocked the deal, failed to quantify the anti-competitive effects of the monopoly created.Analysis The ruling set an important precedent for the Postmedia purchase, which was approved by the Competition Bureau two months later.Conclusions and implications This article points up the problematic nature of competition cases involving news media companies and the need for reform of the Competition Act to prevent such cases from being decided solely on economic grounds, as now mandated by the Supreme Court.Keywords Newspapers; Postmedia; Competition Bureau; Press ownership concentrationContexte Au début de 2015, quelques mois après que le plus grand groupe de presse au Canada, Postmedia Network, a acheté les 175 journaux Sun Media de Québecor Inc., la Cour suprême du Canada a pris une décision marquante. Elle a permis l’achat d’une compagnie de matières dangereuses par une autre parce que le Bureau de la concurrence, qui avait bloqué la transaction, avait échoué à quantifier les effets anticoncurrentiels du monopole qui s’ensuivrait.Analyse Cette décision a constitué un précédent important pour l’achat par Postmedia que le Bureau de la concurrence approuverait deux mois plus tard.Conclusion et implications Cet article souligne la nature problématique de cas de concurrence entre compagnies journalistiques et le besoin de réformer la Loi sur la concurrence afin d’empêcher la prise de décisions sur une base économique seulement, à l’instar du verdict de la Cour suprême.Mots clés Journaux; Postmedia; Bureau de la concurrence; Concentration des médias
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".