Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty years after its first publication, The Gutenberg Galaxy can still be read as an attentive and stunning analysis of the communicative complexity stemming from the sedimentation and re-organization of the typographic mindset. The transition from acoustic to visual patterns, along with the rise of quantitative and scientific knowledge, is one of the most relevant “values of the Gutenberg era” inspired by the decay of scholasticism and the rise of Renaissance individualization and decentralization. On the one hand there is the evolution of the rhetorical trails inherited from classical and Christian culture and, on the other hand, there is the construction of new media myths embedded in the symbolic imageries shaped by electric devices. In this account, McLuhan develops his media analysis with the purpose of highlighting the educational and relational shifts engendered by the communicative changes nourished by diachronic media renewal. Thanks to Harold Innis and Northrop Frye’s legacies, McLuhan builds his masterpiece as a mosaic while exploiting the numerous reflections, argumentations and insights provided in his critical essays forming his intellectual laboratory. As Terence W. Gordon points out in reference to The Gutenberg Galaxy , “it is best read not simply as a harbinger of a post-literate society that would bewilder Johannes Gutenberg and that McLuhan himself would be shocked to find so entrenched so early in the twenty-first century, but as an enduring challenge to understand its subversive purpose” (Gordon, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press, 2011, pp. vii–viii). Thus, The Gutenberg Galaxy can be read as a kaleidoscopic journey into the rhetoric, mythographic values of our communicative identity, inextricably interwoven with our literary, aesthetic and philosophical heritage, especially in the era of hyper-connected relationships and media globalized risks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".