Policy Wonk or Revolutionary?: the Potential of Policy Intervention in Efforts to Defend and Foster Public Interest Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The research question driving this paper is: What opportunities and limitations exist within the policy process to defend and foster public interest media? The paper is divided into two major sections. Chapter One examines the theories of critical political economy and policy networks and argues that these two approaches offer useful analyses of power that reveal opportunities for progressive interventions. Chapter Two examines the CRTC's 1998 radio review, paying particular attention to the attempts of various actors, representing both economic and noneconomic interests, to influence the CRTC's policy on radio ownership. Using critical political economy and policy networks theory, a detailed and contextualized picture of how power is exercised in the policy process is provided. In conclusion, it is argued that institutionally based policy intervention is an important tool for the left, but not adequate in and of itself, in efforts to defend and foster a rich and diverse public interest media"--From the Introduction page 4.
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 | 0.024 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".