MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153348169 · doi:10.1080/09548963.2021.1904207

Understanding creative economy policies in the Canadian context: a case study of “Creative Canada”

2021· article· en· W3153348169 on OpenAlexaffabout
Taeyoung Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural Trends · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreative industriesCultural policyCommodificationContext (archaeology)SovereigntySafeguardingThe artsCreativityCultural heritagePoliticsPublic administrationTourismSociologyPolitical scienceEconomyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how the discourse of creative industries is interpreted in the Canadian context with a case study of the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Creative Canada policy framework. Based on textual analysis of policy documents from both federal and provincial governments, it analyzes the underlying dynamics of Creative Canada with pre-existing dialogues of Canadian cultural policies. The findings of this research indicate that this policy masterplan reinterprets traditional mandates of Canadian cultural policies, such as safeguarding the nation's cultural sovereignty and developing a distinctive Canadian value with market mechanisms. While Creative Canada is a major turning point in policymaking towards the commodification of culture and creativity, its schemes of valuing culture and the arts remain subject to the complexity of the nation’s cultural politics that also shapes the market.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0500.020
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.108 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural TrendsSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207