MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414346261 · doi:10.1093/ct/qtaf020

Expression and reality: a dialogue on communication, constitution, and process philosophy

2025· article· en· W4414346261 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Massumi, Boris H. J. M. Brummans

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Theory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogicConversationExpression (computer science)Relation (database)Meaning (existential)Process (computing)Process philosophySpace (punctuation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract What happens when process philosophy meets communication theory? This article takes up that question through a dialogic inquiry that unfolds in three movements. First, it examines the premises of process philosophy, engaging philosophers such as Whitehead, Simondon, and Deleuze, who conceptualize reality as a dynamic, multifaceted becoming. Next, it develops a process philosophical view of communication and delves into its role in constituting social collectives as relational formations. Finally, the conversation turns to the relation between communication, constitution, and reality, asking how communication might be understood as in-forming the real’s becoming and recursively being in-formed by this becoming. Rather than presenting a linear argument, this article invites the reader into an exploratory movement of thought where meaning emerges in the unfolding of dialogue itself. By embracing this form, the article opens space for reimagining communication theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.118
Scholarly communication0.0240.035
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication TheorySame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207