Harold Innis, Some Aspects of His Posthumous Reception, 1952–1981, and His Ideas of Empire and Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Harold Innis in his time and for our times through a discussion of his posthumous reception in the 1950s by his colleagues: J.B. Brebner, Vincent Bladen, W.T. Easterbrook, and Donald Creighton. It then examines a period from 1976 to 1981, in a time of refection, partly at an event in October 1978 marking the anniversary of Innis College (founded 1964), responses and appreciations of Innis by McLuhan and Havelock. The article then looks at William Christian and Frye on Innis about the same time (1980–82), part of the attempt to edit posthumous works of Innis, and a looking back at his work and legacy. Innis was aware of his own approach and his choice of topics early. He saw media and communication, time and space, as being at the heart of empire. In his studies of rail, fur, fish, empire, communication, technology, and more, Innis sought benefits for the individual, for humanity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".