Intermediality, Intertextuality, and Remediation: A Literary Perspective on Intermediality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of intermediality has come to be part of a fixed critical inventory in the debate on literature and the other arts and media. Although there is relative agreement with respect to a definition of intermediality in a broad sense, the research spectrum becomes much more complex, and often contradictory, when precise formal distinctions and the specification and definition of any one particular concept of intermediality are needed. Based on the current state of the question, the present essay specifies one particular approach to intermediality, introducing three more narrowly conceived subcategories, medial transposition, media combination, and intermedial references. By comparison with the genealogical “remediation” concept of Bolter and Grusin, it is shown with respect to which objects and specific research objectives this subdivided concept gains heuristic and practical value. This is particularly the case when detailed analyses of specific medial configurations, their respective meaning-constitutional strategies, and their overall signification are considered.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".