Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on the formation of the `global media system' from 1860 to 1910. It begins with a critique of conventional knowledge in international communication and focuses on three themes: first, the rise of the global media; second, how markets, states and imperialism shaped the global media; and third, how the global media developed as a series of multinational cartels — powerful `private structures of control' through which corporate and national foreign policy objectives were pursued. We critique the strong tendency in the literature to conflate the history of the global media with the history of imperialism and to exaggerate the extent to which powerful nations struggled constantly with one another to control world communication. Over and against this `struggle for control of international communication' model our concept of empire combines classical theories of imperialism with one of capitalist imperialism. Within this context, the global media evolved as part of a project of creating a worldwide system of accumulation and modernization. Lastly, we show that the global media — in terms of ownership, alliances, corporate identity, international and national laws, views of modernization and imperial strategy — were more global and organized as a system than is often assumed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".