Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This article combines Marshall McLuhan’s media theory with the “racial contract” theory of political philosopher Charles Mills.Analysis Mills critiques the older, Western “social contract,” which holds that “Western man” moves from a “state of nature” (or McLuhan’s tribal man) into “civilization” (McLuhan’s detribal man and retribal man) via organizing with similar humans to establish the rules, laws, codes, guidelines, and, as is argued here, technologies necessary for human cohabitation. Mills argues that there are racial assumptions of the social contract, meaning only some are consenting signatories, particularly White men; thus, the social contract is actually a racial contract.Conclusion and implications McLuhan’s media theory is consistent with Mills’ racial contract: tribal man resides in a state of nature, awaiting man’s detribal or retribal benevolence.ContexteCet article combine la théorie des médias de Marshall McLuhan et la théorie sur le « contrat racial » du philosophe politique Charles W. Mills.Analyse Mills critique le vieux « contrat social » occidental, qui maintient que « l’homme occidental » passe d’un « état de nature » (l’homme tribal selon McLuhan) jusqu’à la « civilisation » (l’homme détribalisé et l’homme retribalisé selon McLuhan) en collaborant avec ses semblables afin d’établir les règles, lois, codes, directives et, tel que soutenu dans cet article, les technologies nécessaires pour la cohabitation humaine. Mills soutient que le contrat social comporte des suppositions raciales, du fait que certains hommes seulement—particulièrement des hommes blancs—en sont des signataires consentants; ainsi, le contrat social est réellement un contrat racial.Conclusion et implications La théorie des médias de McLuhan est en accord avec le contrat racial de Mills : l’homme tribal vit dans l’état de nature, en attente de la bienveillance de l’homme détribalisé ou retribalisé.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".