The Paradox of Public Relations/Communications Management Education in Canada: Taught But Not Studied
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors describe the history of the study of public relations/ communication management in Canada. Focus is placed on the lack of empirical research concerning the function and practice of professional communication in Canada. The authors also discuss the dangers this lack of evidence poses to the constructing of an effective critical literature surrounding the social, cultural and economic impact that public relations/communication management is having in Canada. The authors draw comparisons to three other fields: journalism, communication studies and cultural studies, all of which have faced a similar evolution emerging from practice to theory. Finally, the authors discuss innovative new undergraduate and graduate programs developed at McMaster to address the dearth of empirical investigation of public relations/communication management in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".