Airtime: the public sphere, the public screen, and AIDS activism in contemporary North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a complex web of technological innovations, social and political changes, and market forces over the last century, we have witnessed vast changes in the arrangement and environments of public and private space. Douglas Kellner observes that "a media culture has emerged in which images, sounds, and spectacles help produce the fabric of everyday life, dominating leisure time, shaping political views and social behavior, and providing the materials out of which people forge their very identities" (Media Culture, 1). The introduction of visual media such as television and personal computers, as well as the popularization of the internet over the last two decades, has brought about major shifts in our conception of the public sphere. Most notable is the transformation, outlined by Jurgen Habermas, from the bourgeois public sphere to a public sphere marked and shaped by mass media and spectacle. Ideally, Habermas' bourgeois public sphere is structured as a social space in which private citizens may assemble to discuss, debate, and come to consensus in order to mediate between the state and civil society. According to Habermas, however, this ideal has been brought to its demise largely because of the influence of the mass media. Habermas' ideal public sphere rests on notions of consensus brought about by rational debate which has been replaced by consumption and uncritical reception. He concludes that the "world fashioned by the mass media is a public sphere in appearance only" (Structural Transformation 171).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".