MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783367660 · doi:10.1386/eme.14.1-2.97_1

Is Toronto obsolete?: Process and ambivalence in Marshall McLuhan’s urban studies

2015· article· en· W2783367660 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary Genosko

Bibliographic record

VenueExplorations in Media Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Communication, and Education
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyMedia studiesDowntownGlobeHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article I reflect on the obsolescence of Toronto in order to enquire into the fate of the city as a viable entity within the terms of Marshall McLuhan’s investigations of the late 1960s and their relevance for today. By 1968 McLuhan had pronounced the city obsolete in a universe of globe-extending news satellites and Bucky Fuller domes, that artefactualized and programmed nature. The city as obsolete was a ‘probe’ McLuhan offered to make sense of the enhancements of supersonic speeds of jet travel that he called Jet City. Using the Dew-Line Newsletter as my central point of reference, I want to develop McLuhan’s ideas that arose in the city’s wake; these are threefold: Jet City, mini-states and the application of the Joycean nostrum the ‘the urb… it orbs’. Indeed, in the 1970s McLuhan talked more and more about cities in terms of aviation-figures, as airports coordinating flights and passages, of corporate hijackings and crashes. McLuhan asked us to imagine ‘circulating cities’ in the forms of mass migrations, for business and pleasure, of populations on the move, anticipating the multiple mobilities of the present day. Yet at the same time, revealing the lived tension of his position, he acted against plans for the downtown Spadina Expressway, against the developers, as a homeowner who still lived in a neighbourhood worth protecting from development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExplorations in Media EcologySame topicMedia, Communication, and EducationFrench-language works237,207