Audiovisual Regulation Under Pressure: Comparative Cases from North America and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In face of globalization and new media technologies, can policy makers and regulators withstand deregulatory pressures on the 'cultural policy toolkit' for television? This comparative study, written by scholars of law and political scientist and bringing to bear insights from these disciplines, investigates trends in audiovisual regulation, with the focus on television and new digital media. It considers pressures for deregulation and for policy in this field to prioritise market development and economic goals rather than traditional cultural and democratic objectives, notably public service content, the promotion of national and local culture, media pluralism and diversity. The book explores in separate chapters regulatory policy in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, and it also provides chapters on small countries in Europe and on the European Union's role. The book focuses on a range of policy instruments designed for promoting pluralism and cultural diversity, particularly the role of public service broadcasting and the range of measures available for promoting social and cultural policy goals, such as subsidies, scheduling and investment quotas, as well as media ownership rules. The book draws on findings of two research projects funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".