MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386137083 · doi:10.3406/ranam.2019.1575

Border Environments : Theorising Media and Culture in the Windsor-Detroit Borderlands, 1943-1946

2019· article· fr· W4386137083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Darroch

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches anglaises et nord-américaines · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Communication, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindsorHumanitiesSociologyEthnologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article prend appui sur la formule de Marshall McLuhan selon laquelle la frontière «n’est pas un lien mais un entre-deux de résonance» (1977 : 226) et se penche sur la conception de la frontière jusqu’au milieu des années 1940. McLuhan a vécu et enseigné à Windsor, Ontario, ville frontière canadienne qui se trouve en face de Detroit, Michigan. Pendant son séjour à Windsor, McLuhan a entretenu une collaboration avec Wyndham Lewis, professeur à Windsor et à Detroit à l’époque, et avec Siegfried Giedion, qui voyageait alors en Amérique du Nord. Lewis et Giedion eurent une influence décisive sur McLuhan qui commençait à théoriser le concept d’environnements culturels médiatisés. On peut penser que l’expérience qu’a vécue McLuhan à Windsor/ Detroit a été le creuset dans lequel prit forme sa théorie du «village global» conçu non comme espace utopique préfigurant un univers culturellement harmonieux mais plutôt comme sphère dans laquelle chacun d’entre nous s’implique, consciemment ou non. Parce qu’elles suscitent des frictions, les frontières sont des espaces collectifs où les différences culturelles doivent être reconnues. Ainsi, des zones frontalières comme Windsor/Detroit, à la fois poreuses et imperméables, demeurent-elles des espaces d’enseignements féconds qui encouragent des modes de vision pluriels.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches anglaises et nord-américainesSame topicMedia, Communication, and EducationFrench-language works237,207