MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968731553 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4245451

Programming inequality: Gender representation on Canadian country radio (2005-2019)

2020· article· en· W6968731553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)LimitingMetadataBroadcasting (networking)Radio broadcastingRadio program

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In May 2015, a consultant for country radio revealed a decades' long practice of limiting space for songs by female artists. He encouraged program directors to avoid playing songs by women back-to-back and advocated for programming their songs at 13-15% of station playlists. His words sparked debate within the industry and drew attention to growing inequalities on radio and within the genre. The majority of these discussions have centered on US country radio, with limited attention to the growing imbalance on the format in Canada. While country format radio in both countries subscribe to a practice of gender-based programming, Canadian program directors are governed by the federal Broadcasting Act, which regulates dissemination of Canadian content. Using metadata extracted from one of the main radio monitoring services – Mediabase, this paper examines gender-related trends on Canadian country format radio between 2005 and 2019. Through data-driven analysis of Mediabase's weekly re-ports, this paper shows declining representation of songs by women on Canadian country radio and addresses the impact of Canadian content regulations on this process.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital MediaFrench-language works237,207