Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If great material resources and specialist technical knowledge are no longer required for individuals to act as mass communicators, what resources are required? This paper reviews social theories of production that can help to shed light on the matter. It explores the nature of knowledge required in the production of content meant for a mass audience, and the manner of its validation. The paper progressively conceptualizes mass communication or mediation in terms of ‘media experience and expertise.’ It begins by framing the discussion of media production in terms of mediation and symbolic/media power, and teasing out knowledge and competence as problems that merit special attention. It then draws on two parallel areas of scholarship to think through the blurring of formerly neat boundaries between interpersonal and mass communication; producer and audience; and expert and layperson. First, the renewed interest in the lived experience of professional producers that is spurred by media production ethnographers. Second, ongoing debates in Science and Technology Studies (STS) around knowledge production and public participation. The paper concludes with a discussion of outstanding issues with respect to media theory and proposals for future work.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".