Managing the mosaic: diversity of voices and deliberative policy making in English Canadian media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates viewpoints on policy for diversity in media subsequent to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)’s 2007-5 diversity of voices proceedings and subsequent CRTC 2008-4 regulatory changes. The policy proceedings were designed to aggregate and act upon the many policy preferences and conceptions of media diversity within Canada’s complex media mosaic. Research reported here uses Q methodology, complemented with conventional survey questions and open-ended qualitative questions, to identify and interpret the plurality of subjective viewpoints surrounding the diversity debate and the CRTC’s deliberative policymaking processes. Research identified four principal viewpoints regarding policy for media diversity, based on concerns about minority representation, industry consolidation, Canadian cultural expression, and a comprehensive marketplace of ideas. It also considers various stakeholder viewpoints on the CRTC’s 2007-5 deliberative proceedings, and the extent to which the Commission’s deliberative processes meet the four deliberative democratic pillars of inclusiveness, equality, reasonableness and publicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".