MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306774606 · doi:10.51317/jmc.v4i1.218

Regulating broadcast media adult content: A case of Kenya and selected other countries

2022· article· en· W4306774606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivian Moraa Nyaata

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Media and Communication (JMC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Studies and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenyaMainstreamLegislationGovernment (linguistics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Content analysisPolitical sciencePublic relationsAdvertisingBusinessSociologySocial scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study sought to regulate broadcast media adult content in Kenya and selected countries. The study was conducted through desktop research. This includes searches on government websites, academic databases, relevant book and journal literature, online publications, and reviewing primary legislation and regulatory instruments. Five jurisdictions (the US, Canada, South Africa, Britain and Australia) were selected for comparative analysis. The findings demonstrate that Kenya’s mainstream media frequently promotes unrealistic, sexually suggestive behaviour. It was also established that Kenyan television and radio are not adequately regulated. Furthermore, consistency and persistence in monitoring and rating media content prevent ‘ratings creep’ whereby, as earlier explained, content meant for adults is gradually and increasingly included in programs meant for children. A clear and consistent rating system must therefore be developed for Kenya by an independent regulatory authority to avoid ratings creep.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Media and Communication (JMC)Same topicMedia Studies and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207