O Modelo de Lasswell Aplicado à História das Teorias da Comunicação
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O modelo de Lasswell, criado em 1948 por Harold Lasswell, se tornou rapidamente o modelo canônico de representação dos processos comunicativos: quem, diz o quê, em que canal, para quem, com que efeito? Contudo, conforme mostra Rafiza Varão (2009), essas interrogações foram, originalmente, utilizadas para classificar os estudos de comunicação em cinco categorias, os estudos sobre os emissores, o conteúdo, os meios, o público e os efeitos. Assim, resgatando essa primeira utilidade do modelo, esse trabalho aplica essa classificação às principais correntes teóricas da comunicação em massa: a Escola de Chicago, os estudos empíricos estadunidenses, a Teoria da Informação, a Escola de Frankfurt, o Agenda-Setting, os Estudos Culturais, o Newsmaking e a Escola de Toronto.Palavras-chave: Comunicação. Mídia. Teorias da Comunicação. Modelo Lasswel.AbstractThe Lasswell model, created in 1948 by Harold Lasswell, quickly became the canonical model of the communicative processes representation: who, says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect? However, as Rafiza Varão (2009) shows, these questions were originally used to classify communication studies into five categories, senders studies, content, media, receivers and effects. Thus rescuing the first utility of Lasswell model, this paper applies this rating to the main theoretical currents of mass communication: the Chicago School, US empirical studies, information theory, the Frankfurt School, Agenda-Setting, Studies cultural, the Newsmaking and the School of Toronto.Keywords: Communication. Media. Communication Theories. Lasswell Model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it