Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critique of the corporate control of the media has gone mainstream.While once only a few voices cried in the wilderness, books describing the abuse of media power, by the likes of Al Franken (2003), Eric Alterman (2003), Joe Conason (2003), andDavid Brock (2004), line the shelves of bookstores.Documentary films critical of corporate culture, such as Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine and Morgan Spurlock's Supersize Me, win nominations and awards at the Oscars, and Jon Stewart's nightly mockery of the corporate establishment on The Daily Show garners a mass audience.That critiquing the media has become, in fact, part of mainstream media culture itself merits study, but it also gives reason to direct some careful attention to the popular literature that might be said to serve as a foundation for this rise in awareness of the problems with the media.Criticism of the corporate control of the media is not new; recent popular work builds on earlier work that paved the way.Work in the 1980s by such heroes of the activist left as Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman (1988) and Michael Parenti (1986) identified corporate control of the media as a serious problem.Their work, mostly aimed at a general readership, has been criticized by communications scholars in many ways, most notably for an inadequate recognition of the agency of the audience and an overly rigid theory of the power of economic structures.
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 | 0.027 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".