MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1885975398 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2003v28n4a1389

Space, Time, and Communication Theory

2003· article· en· W1885975398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Studies and Postmodernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Field (mathematics)Media theoryCommunication theorySpacetimeSociologyEpistemologySpace timeScale (ratio)Media studiesComputer sciencePhilosophyGeographyPhysicsCommunicationEngineeringMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This plenary address to the Laurier conference extends the fundamental insight of Innis and McLuhan that communication studies concerns time and space by inviting scholars to consider the very large and the very small, the very old and the very far, as outer limits to communication theory. Specifically, it explores geology, astronomy, and cosmology as inquiries into media that span deep time and deep space. It suggests that communication studies is not merely an interdisciplinary field, but one that goes beyond the human scale and potentially encompasses any inquiry into time and space. The untold expanse of communication is a territory, I contend, which we are only just beginning to appreciate.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it