Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has a rich heritage of English-language communication thought. For the first time "Canadian Communication Thought" assembles much of this erudition by introducing and examining the writings of ten foundational scholars: Graham Spry, Harold Innis, John Grierson, Dallas Smythe, C.B. Macpherson, Irene Spry, George Grant, Gertrude Robinson, Northrop Frye, and Marshall McLuhan. The author compares and critiques the thought of these ten sages, relates their writings to their biographies and to the Canadian physical and cultural environment, and compares their work to foundational American communication scholars. He finds that there is indeed a mode of theorizing that is 'quintessentially Canadian.' Compared with the work of foundational American writers, for instance, the Canadian literature is significantly more dialectical, ontological, holistic, and critical; it emphasizes to a much greater extent the impact of communication on social change; and it is more concerned with mediation and the formation and sustenance of culture and community. The Canadian writers are also much more engaged than their American counterparts with the question of power in communication - with what can generally be regarded as matters of political economy.Moreover, the wisdom of these ten experts is invaluable for understanding important issues of our day, for example: globalization, environmental deterioration, rapid technological change in the communication sphere, the erosion of privacy, the diminution of public space, the commodification of information and culture, growing disparities between rich and poor, identity and representation in the media, virtual realities, and the waning of democracy. The communication thought of these ten acclaimed scholars increases awareness of questions we should continually ask, provides important insight into how we can resolve current dilemmas, and invites us to consider possibilities for pursuing freedom, equality, justice, and peace
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.205 | 0.029 |
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".