Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the philosophical interpretation of the media concept. Philosophy of media is one of the most topical trends of modern philosophy. The purpose of the given article is to study the directions of conceptualization of media in philosophy of the second half of the XX century – the beginning of the XXI century. The most popular definition of the term media is «mass media», or «communication media». From the second half of the XX century this definition is regularly reproduced in various types of philosophical research, which deal with the critics of mass media/communication media. The founders of the Frankfurt School criticize media as a constituent of the culture industry. The philosophers of the school of cultural research carry out the analysis of the ideology of the retransmitted mass media. There is another interpretation of the media concept as «material factors of communication processes». The Canadian theorist of culture M. McLuhan considers media to be not only the means of the communication, but also a message. Therein the concept of «media» becomes the central tool for studying transformations of culture. The further development of the given direction in interpretation of media can be found in the research of W. Ong, F. Kittler, R. Debray.\nIn a number of modern philosophical conceptions the media concept is defined even more broadly and is corresponded to the concept of language (D. Mersch, L. Wiesing, M. Vogel, V. Savchuk). The given directions of mediaphilosophy are the result of the linguisticturn, which designated language to be the central philosophical problem. The medialturn in modern philosophy is an extension of the linguisticturn and is one of the most important tendencies of hot cognition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 teacher head, 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".