MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416290401 · doi:10.29173/alr2814

Aid for Sisyphus: Incentives and Canadian Content Regulation in Broadcasting

2025· article· W4416290401 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hudson Janisch

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveBroadcasting (networking)IndigenousInvestment (military)Content (measure theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measured against recent developments in Canadian content regulation in broadcasting, claims of an overall shift to incentive-policy instruments seem exaggerated. Nevertheless, even here there are signs of some move away from exclusive reliance on command-and-control type regulation in favour of investment incentives for indigenous programming. In documenting this shift from "sticks to carrots" it is suggested that it would be inappropriate to think in terms of the traditional notions of administrative law fair procedures, although some minimal concept of "orderliness" in applying incentives might be appropriate.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207