MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Las paradojas de la política cultural canadiense en la industria editorial en lengua inglesa. Entre el proteccionismo y el libre comercio

2025· article· es· W4406320794 on OpenAlex
Antonio Fernández Díez

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNorteamérica · 2025
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiterature, Musicology, and Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El presente artículo analiza las políticas culturales canadienses sobre la inversión extranjera en la industria editorial en lengua inglesa. Se concentra especialmente en el estudio de la Foreign Investment Review Act (FIRA) y la Investment Canada Act (ICA). Argumenta la existencia de una paradoja que enfrenta la protección gubernamental, representada por subsidios y programas de financiamiento a la edición, con la liberalización comercial que ha beneficiado a las editoriales transnacionales. Derivado de la información recopilada por la Association of Canadian Publishers (ACP), datos gubernamentales de Statistics Canada y la opinión de figuras públicas vinculadas a la industria del libro, se observa una ineficiencia en la aplicación de las políticas que ha permitido a editoriales extranjeras adquirir empresas canadienses y controlar la mayoría del mercado del libro en Canadá.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.295 · 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