Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article examines the ways in which television is usually studied, and finds them wanting. The usual approach of putting television in opposition to film, while useful, contains numerous aporias and leads to particular types of questions. Additionally, it works best with American media and poorly with those in other countries. Finally, television's historical ties to film are often most appreciated when they highlight the tragedy of Hollywood's passing. In the case of Canada, the study of television has been hampered by its absorption into the narrative of cultural defence and into the rationale of the policy apparatus justified by that narrative. The article proposes, therefore, three avenues for the reform of television studies. The first is to attend to actual audience behaviour through theoretically informed empirical study. The second is to attend to the historical forms of the institutionalization of television within its specific contexts. The third is to abandon the narrative of cultural defence with its attendant focus on the policy apparatus in favour of a more nuanced evaluation of the entire constellation of discourses which make up the television institution.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".