Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examines the field of human communication studies and the impulses driving a key stage of pioneering efforts in the development of communication study and teaching in Australia. It outlines six major groupings of meanings and senses of the word "communication" that researchers, teachers, and practitioners used at the time of the 1980 inaugural conference of the Australian Communication Association (now the Australian & Aotearoa New Zealand Communication Association). Opportunities for conscious cooperation among academics from diverse disciplines to expand understandings of communication are outlined. The chapter incorporates points from the author's paper "Finding Communication Meaning in Australia," presented at the Association's organizing conference. Commencing from a challenge that Communication Studies is not a discipline, the paper offers clarification of uses of the word "communication" in the academy and in practice as an impulse for the development of a coherent field of study. It is suggested the new Australian Communication Association encourage inquiries well-grounded in collaborative understandings of the diverse theoretical explanations of communication. Reference is made to efforts among mass communication and communication researchers who advocate pluralistic perspectives on communication. The chapter notes Canadian efforts at the time to clarify communication terminology and describes further evolution of the Australian Journal of Communication, as well as detailing the broadening of course offerings and some faculty personalities contributing to this early development of communication education. In closing, it considers the promise provided by focusing on communication as the mutual development of understanding and knowledge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".