MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236466366 · doi:10.3138/chr.91.1.1

Tempest in the Tea Leaves: Broadcasting the Esoteric Arts and Mystic Sciences, 1937–1953

2010· article· en· W4236466366 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Len Kuffert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroadcasting (networking)CorporationEntertainmentAdvertisingThe artsMedia studiesTempestPolitical scienceSociologyLawArtBusinessLiteratureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: From 1937 until 1953, it was contrary to Canadian broadcasting regulations to broadcast programs with speakers claiming to have supernatural abilities, or to offer personal advice over the airwaves. As the broadcast regulator, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was responsible for enforcing the ban, which meant preventing privately operated stations from producing such programs. The struggle over what sort of programming was suitable not only mirrored the differences between audiences and regulators or broadcasters and regulators, but also attitudes toward esoteric lifestyles, religion, science, and the place of entertainment on the air. Regulators uncomfortable with the potential for exploitation or exposure of listeners' private affairs repeatedly turned back attempts by broadcasters to circumvent the regulation, and in the process revealed some deep-seated class and gender-based assumptions about radio's early audiences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicFolklore, Mythology, and Literature StudiesFrench-language works237,207