Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article the methodological implications of Marshall McLuhan's famous phrases are discussed, such as "I do not have a theory of communication" and "I do not use theories in my work". In the absence of a theory, the other way is to work with the research and observation technique: first of all the evidence; then, much later, the theory (if indeed it is necessary for that time). Without a theory as a guide, artists and poets influenced McLuhan in the development of analytical and conceptual tools on which it was based on in order to examine the means and communication. For this procedure, he started taking a problem and delving into it a tool kit looking for any item to open the door to enlightenment. Its main tool of analysis was critical practice, which he saw as a kind of Swiss army knife incisively working in all different areas of arts and culture, from the simplest to the most intellectual. The argument that emerges from analysis of McLuhan's investigative techniques is that many of the enigmas of media and modern culture are understood more effectively to research that transcends the limits imposed by trying to present an argument for or against a particular theory. If you start with the theory, it starts with the answer; if initiated by observation, it starts with the questions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".