Research in Brief Democratizing Communication Policy in Canada: A Social Movement Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partly due to citizens ’ coalitions like the Canadian Radio League in the 1930s, Canadian communications policy has long embodied elements of a democratic public sphere (see, for example, Raboy & Shtern, 2010). While quite concrete social interests helped to solidify such policies as public broadcasting, the common-carrier principle in telecommunications, and public consultation processes in policymaking, Canadian communications policies are also informed by broader democratic values, such as accountability of media institutions to publics and democratic policy goals; access to, and diversity of, citizen-relevant information; community-building, at both local and national levels; minority cultural and linguistic rights; domestic control over Canada’s media system as a prerequisite for cultural sovereignty and democratic con-trol over communication policy; and, yet more broadly, universal access to the key means of public communication as a basis for equality and participation in society, culture, and politics. Never perfectly realized, these policies and values are under attack by neo-liberal governments and ideologues. Communication policy has never fundamentally altered the commercial and corporate domination of Canadian media, which has arguably in-
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".