MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809340175 · doi:10.33178/alpha.12.01

Media hysteresis

2017· article· en· W2809340175 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Théophanidis, Ghislain Thibault

Bibliographic record

VenueAlphaville Journal of Film and Screen Media · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNew mediaDigital mediaTemporalitiesHysteresisInsiderSociologyArgument (complex analysis)Field (mathematics)HabitusEpistemologyComputer scienceSimultaneityMedia studiesAestheticsArtEthnographyMathematicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For media scholars, locating the old in the new helps to debunk the inflation around the “newness” of contemporary media. Several approaches have been put to work in the exploration of these multiple temporalities within media: remediation, media revival, residual media, media archeology. In this article, we explore another temporal concept—hysteresis—as a way to think through the folding of time within and across media. The first part of the article presents a theoretical overview of the concept of hysteresis, from the field of experimental sciences in the late nineteenth century to Marx, Bourdieu, Baudrillard and others in the social sciences. In the second part, we introduce the concept of “media hysteresis” and illustrate it with two examples: the design of the keypad by Bell System’s push-button phones and the QWERTY keyboard. In the third and final part, we weave the concept of media hysteresis through a discussion of some of the major changes in cinema. More specifically, we examine how the aesthetic of the analogue persists in digital media and how media hysteresis can be useful to apprehend the celluloid revival. Our main argument throughout the article is the need for a theory of asynchronous simultaneity to analyse persistence and continuity across technological changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.005

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlphaville Journal of Film and Screen MediaSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207