Bibliographic record
Abstract
Media materiality concerns the overall physical elements (technological and aesthetic) and phenomenological effects of a medium. Media are a form of mediation that foster experiences and understandings of the world. Media circumscribe the conditions of possibility and concrete supports through which worlds take shape and through which we come to know them. As an area of research, the materialities of media were studied through the experiments of The Explorations Group, an interdisciplinary “think tank” established at the University of Toronto in the early 1950s. This was a time when media—magazines/newspapers, cinema, radio, television, computers—became discernible as an interconnected ecology we still refer to as “the media.” The Explorations Group sought to study the global situation created by media in the post–World War II era. The group was heavily inspired by the writings of Canadian political economist Harold Innis, and Swiss architectural historian, Sigfried Giedion (influenced by Hungarian artist-designer László Moholy-Nagy). Though different, Innis and Giedion were historians who developed interdisciplinary and comparative methodologies to distinguish the impacts of specific technologies and physical materials on sociocultural infrastructures and concomitant mentalities across epochs. More recently media materiality research takes up earlier philosophies of media ecology (McLuhan, Deleuze, and Guattari) as both environmental and rhizomatic experiences. Whether defined through computation (coding), digital technologies, or media art, analyses of virtual worlds and platforms (games, extended reality [XR]) focus on concrete capitalist infrastructures as well as kinds of obsolescence and remediations. Notions of digital storage and the harmful environmental impact of server farms for example are favored in accounts of eco media above nondescript discussions of “the cloud.” Participatory cultures and collaborative modes of embodied making along with do-it-yourself kinds of cultural production are animating highly tactile approaches to world making. Media materiality can be understood through a diversity of community-based cultural practices and hyper-localized communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".