Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lternative media" is a concept and focus of study that has gained momentum in the past 15 years, following a spate of landmark Anglo-American academic texts that appeared at the beginning of the last decade. 1 The variety of communication practices and projects that have thus come into focus, of course, are not necessarily so historically novel-though this may often in some respects be the case-and their theoretical framing shares something of the fascination and concern with extant possibilities for participatory and potentially progressive/oppositional media practices evident in work from Benjamin and Brecht to Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Armand Mattelart, and Raymond Williams. A basic commitment to communicative democracy prompts attention to proposals and practical examples of varying scale that might contribute to the project of dispensing with "the idea that communication is the business of a minority talking to, instructing, leading on, the majority" (Williams, cited in Hamilton 2008, p. 3). At the same time, specific projects that propose to set out in this direction, in their evident diversity, call for fine-grained analysis in their own right. Indeed, useful analysis, not taking for granted the emancipatory potential of media forms and technologies, must carefully consider the modes and structures of participation manifest in particular cases, the status of prefigurative initiatives, the fraught terrain of any politics of representation, and such practical matters as the potential sustainability (or frequent ephemerality) of grassroots and activist media projects. The fact that struggle for and through what have come to be termed "alternative media" is essential to prospects for progressive social change is increasingly recognized, 2 and work in the field is proliferating. Interested scholars may now count amidst this proliferation a volume which explores significant elements of the Canadian context whilst engaging with broader (sub-) disciplinary deliberations and offering up relevant strategic considerations for practitioners and activists.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".