Media Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, the United States, Canada and France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been said about the roles of the mass media in the society and the enormity of their influences as derived from their functions in the society.On the other hand, experts are in constant debate of how the society in which the media operate shapes their structures and operations.As a sub-system in the entire societal system, other institutions have a bearing on the operations of the media.Government is a major institution whose roles in dictating media structure and performances cannot be overlooked.One way of considering the interrelationship between the media and the government of a particular society at a particular time is the analysis of the country's media system.Given that the political ideology of country would shape the philosophy of its media a comparative study of media systems of different countries would assist to understand the different colourations of the media based on the corresponding variations in political milieus.This paper explores the media systems in Britain, the United States, Canada and France 'with a view to comparing them on the basis of general operational models which determines ownership, control, policy regulation and normative philosophies.The paper establishes a share difference between France and the other countries: the former being a polarised pluralist and others, liberal models.Among the liberal models, the United States system exhibits the highest level of liberalism and this accounts for the system's global acclamation of the freest media.Government control of the media is most pronounced in the French system through subsidies: strong in the British media through government ownership of broadcasting; moderated by the Canadian government concerns about national identity, which calls for state control on foreign media products.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".