Stretching the Frontiers of Communication and Media Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nico Carpentier is a renowned researcher in the field of communication and media studies. He published a large number of studies dealing with participation, media, media technologies, civil society, discourse analysis, power and communication rights. His scientific writing, always attesting its concerns of well anchoring its research theoretically. In this interview, Nico Carpentier discusses the significance of disciplinary dialogue within and beyond what he calls the “discipline/field” of communication and media studies. He argues, on the one hand, that disciplinary strength is fundamental because it allows the articulation of conversations within and between regional outbreaks (e.g. European, North American and Latin American) of the discipline/field. On the other hand, this stance favors an interdisciplinary opening that can reinforce the theoretical and empirical foundations of communication and media studies. Last but not the least, throughout this interview, Nico Carpentier gives access to his most recent research. These seek to highlight the empirical case of the Island of Cyprus ongoing conflicts, by analyzing the discursive-material knot of a participatory-agonistic assemblage (a community radio station)—these observations are discussed in his 2017 paper, The Discursive Material Knot: Cyprus in Conflict and Community Media Participation. Through this particular case, he is also interested in showing the links between the material and the symbolic per the study of representations, cultures and materialities—which results are presented in the article Cyprus and its Conflicts: Representations, Materialities, and Cultures (co-directed with Vaia Doudaki, 2018).
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 | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".