Changing channels: an exploration of disruptive technologies and the challenges they pose to English-Canadian television product
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The audience wants to be able to watch a program when they want - in fact most every technological innovation adopted by the television industry has had some aspect in its design to fulfil that desire. I'm interested in how technologies facilitate audiences in finding a way to watch what they want to, when they want to. I'm also interested in (and to be frank, somewhat anxious since I work in television) what new pitfalls and possibilities the latest technologies pose for the future of television production and distribution in Canada. As we'll lean later, there are technological changes afoot that could sideswipe the effort of generations of Canadian broadcast policymakers and topple the Canadian television industry in their wake. Ours is a fragile television broadcasting system, crippled by a deeply divided policy framework based on two opposing philosophies -- one that puts an emphasis on television's role as a public service and another that emphasizes its commercial purposes and profitability. I will evaluate whether that policy framework is equipped to safeguard Canada's precarious television industry against what some say is an inevitable tidal wave of American domination heading our way. But first I want to investigate whether American domination of our TV sets is such a horror. If television doesn't really matter when it comes to our cultural and national sovereignty, I might as well stop writing right now. But as we'll learn, it does matter. While there is much debate over how television plays a role in our functioning as a sovereign society there is a general consensus that something is happening when we watch TV. It is to the problem of what that something is that I turn to first."--Pages 1-2.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".