Review of the broadcasting powers and responsibilities in selected countries Report for the expert panel on a shadow broadcasting and communications authority for Wales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides a review of the broadcasting powers and responsibilities in the Basque Country, Canada, Denmark, the Republic of Ireland and Estonia. The research is based on analysis of official policy documents, industry data and academic literature published over the last 15 years from these countries and across European and international media policy domains. Through five profiles the report presents a factual summary of each country's media system,supported by in-depth case studies of contemporary debates within that country on public media governance, regulation, funding and content provision. The report examines specific issues relating to serving the needs and interests of distinct linguistic and cultural communities, as well as exploring the countries' strategies for adapting policy and public service organisations to the digital media landscape. The report also offers a summary of our findings and general observations on the structure of these various media systems, their distinct approaches to policymaking, and the implications of different models or methods for governing and regulating public media. We hope the cases presented are interesting, informative and useful for the Expert Panel's deliberations on the prospects for the devolution of broadcasting powers to Wales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".