MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307070922 · doi:10.70064/mt.v5i2.926

Celestial Apparitions: Media-Machine, Broadcasting and Aerial Advertising

2022· article· en· W4307070922 on OpenAlex
Ghislain Thibault

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedia theory. · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature, Film, and Journalism Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingBroadcasting (networking)NegotiationSkyPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyBusinessComputer securityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the interwar period, as commercial aviation was beginning to take shape, a range of technical innovations led to the development of the field of ‘aerial advertising’. Aerial advertising took on various media forms (sonic, visual, textual) and supports (leaflets, light projections, billboard-like print advertising, smoke, audio speakers) and turned to the sky as screen, support, milieu or medium for mass communication. This essay sets out to revisit the case of aerial advertising, mobilizing some of the key lessons and themes from Speaking into the Air. I explore the specific symbolic and technical configurations of transportation and communication put forth by aerial advertising. Then, turning to the two foundational models of dissemination and dialogue, I address the ambiguous role of pilots as speakers/writers. Finally, I use the case of aerial advertising to explore some of the negotiations around the various meanings of broadcasting and conclude on the question of the persistence of presence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it