Out of the Fog and into the Future: Directions of Public Relations, Theory Building, Research, and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Delphi study is about the future directions of public relations. International public-relations experts, scholars and practitioners, are asked about the relationship between theory and practice, as well as the impact of different disciplines, academic concepts, and theories on public relations. By looking at recent developments in public relations, different trends become obvious: The practical field, as well as public relations teaching, is drifting toward a management perspective. “Communication management” is a term that has been adopted heavily in recent years. The academic research, however, although still lacking theory building, tries to tie in to sociological theories. It looks as though public relations, on the one hand, tries to become more accepted in the management field and, on the other hand, claims its place in society. This study underlines both trends.
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 | 0.196 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.057 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".