MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088076465 · doi:10.1177/1527476420959770

The Illusion of Control: History and Criticism of Interactive Television

2020· article· en· W3088076465 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTelevision & New Media · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractivityInteractive televisionMeaning (existential)CriticismTerm (time)AdvertisingTelevision studiesIdeologyControl (management)MultimediaOrder (exchange)Function (biology)Computer scienceSociologyMedia studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term “interactive television” initially referred to the idea that television might facilitate two-way communication between viewers. In the 1980s, this term was also used to refer to television’s ability to provide access to interactive menus and electronic services, and in the 1990s, it was used to refer to the idea that viewers could potentially alter the content of television programs. This new definition has now become possible due to the rise of streaming and on-demand services, and the sudden resurgence of interest in interactive television demands a revaluation and reassessment of its complicated history. While some critics celebrate interactivity as empowering and liberating, for example, others argue that it enables ever more virulent forms of control and manipulation. This article will examine the history of this controversial term and its most recent manifestations in order to address the significance of its meaning and ideological function.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.263 · 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