What is a podcast? Considering innovations in podcasting through the six-tensions framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay addresses two questions on the topic of podcast innovation. The first, ‘What is a podcast?’ is answered via a review of the literature, investigating podcasting history and its evolution. The definition of podcasting arising from this analysis – centring on episodic audio, convenient both to produce and experience – takes into account recent changes, providing an up-to-date description of the term, useful for further research on the topic. It is also required to answer our second question: ‘How do we design new ways to produce and listen to podcasts without denaturing the medium?’ By reflecting on the essential features of podcasting and the necessity for innovation in this interdisciplinary medium, a framework of six-tensions is proposed as a means of grounding and potentially boosting innovation. Answering these questions could prove valuable for the future of podcasting, hypothesising a basis for reflection and development in both academia and industry.
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 | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".