MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391575576 · doi:10.4324/9781003000242-2

Harris on writing and the Toronto School of Communications

2024· book-chapter· en· W4391575576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Hutton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedia studiesTelecommunicationsSociologyLibrary scienceHistoryEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter argues that integrationism, rather than being an isolated set of critical voices within linguistics, actually reflects the preoccupations of broad currents of thinking on language and representation in the twentieth-century West. These include modernism and its various strands (Symbolism, Primitivism, Vorticism, Futurism, Cubism, Dada, Surrealism, etc.), the popular intellectual movement, General Semantics (most commonly associated with its slogan: “The map is not the territory”), interacting lines of conceptual art, popular Orientalism, Zen Buddhism, and therapeutic semantics (Edward de Bono), as well as post-structuralism and deconstruction. This point is illustrated with reference to the Toronto School of Communications, and its most notable figure, Marshall McLuhan. The chapter tracks attitudes to orality, literacy, and communications technology within the School, noting Roy Harris’s responses, which are often critical, yet also align in key respects. Twentieth-century thinking on the image and representation, on space, time, and linearity, and on indeterminacy and fragmentation offers an intellectual context for understanding the emergence of integrationism, and this offers insights that escape an exclusive focus on the history and disciplinary formation of linguistics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207