Marshall McLuhan et la théorie médiatique : genèse, pertinence et limites d’une contribution contestée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le sens aigu des aphorismes et l’hermétisme de Marshall McLuhan ont probablement nui à la réception scientifique de ses travaux. Néanmoins, les écrits de l’auteur canadien continuent de susciter critiques et dithyrambes. Dans cet article, nous effectuons à partir des sciences de la communication un bilan succinct de sa contribution. Après avoir passé en revue quelques-uns de ceux envers qui McLuhan lui-même est redevable, nous abordons la postérité de ses écrits et évoquons les critiques les plus récurrentes qui lui ont été adressées. L’article conclut en évoquant la manière dont McLuhan a importé de manière homologique dans l’analyse des media les approches mobilisées en théorie littéraire dans les années 1930 et en appelant en renfort l’approche de Harold Innis pour compléter celle de McLuhan.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".