Canonic texts in media research : are there any? should there be? how about these?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contributors. Introduction: Shoulders to Stand On. Section I: Columbia School. Introduction. Critical Research at Columbia: Lazarsfeld and Mertona s Communication, Popular Taste, and Organized Social Action Peter Simonson and Gabriel Weimann. Herzog's Borrowed Experience: Its Place in the Debate Over the Active Audience Tamar Liebes. Section II: Frankfurt School. Introduction. Subtlety of Horkheimer and Adorno: Reading The Culture Industry John Durham Peters. Benjamin Contextualized: On The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Paddy Scannell. Redeeming Consumption: On Lowenthal's The Triumph of the Mass Idols Eva Illouz. Section III: School. Introduction. Community and Pluralism in Wirth's Consensus and Mass Eric Rothenbuhler. Audience Is a Crowd, the Crowd Is a Public: Latter--Day Thoughts on Lang and Lang's MacArthur Day in Chicago Elihu Katz and Daniel Dayan. Towards the Virtual Encounter: Horton and Wohl's Communication and Para--social Interaction Don Handelman. Section IV: Toronto School. Introduction. Harold Adams Innis and his Bias of Communication Menahem Blondheim. Canonic Anti--text: Marshall McLuhan's Understanding Media Joshua Meyrowitz. Section V: British Cultural Studies. Introduction. Retroactive Enrichment: Raymond Williamsa s Culture and Society John Durham Peters. Canonization Achieved? Stuart Hall's Encoding/Decoding Michael Gurevitch and Paddy Scannell. Afterthoughts on Mulvey's Visual Pleasure in the Age of Cultural Studies Yosefa Loshitzky. Index
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.012 |
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".