This is not like a poster: o cartaz: dos átomos aos bites, do material ao imaterial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era of digital and consumption society, the printed poster is in a time of change and adaptation to technologies. Has an important way of communication, the idea that it’s format doesn’t only exist on the walls stands out. In the first place, this study contextualizes the printed poster in history, searching for a definition and understanding of the poster as a medium. The printed poster has we know it, takes us to the XVII century and walked in a relationship with painting. Jules Chéret and Toulouse-Lautrec are the main figures in the development of the poster as a mean of communication. In his genesis, the poster’s main function was merely aesthetic until a strong advertising power was understood. It was the predecessor of visual communication and a crucial element in the rise of graphic design. It brought the emergence of the designer as a professional just as persuasive advertisements and bigger/stronger brands. Considering the visions of authors like Crowley and Poynor, the actual state of the poster gets highlighted compared to society and media. They defend it’s subsistence in the public space but at the same time believe in a change of format and structure, defining an historical line of it’s growth. At this stage, it’s clear to see a change in it’s printed and passive realm to a digital and interactive condition as an answer to media and technology development. The difference between the old media poster and the new media poster gets established, justified by the digitized information and the binary structures, which takes us to the remediation process by Bolter and Grusin. It is the process that clarify and connect the printed poster to the digital screens and other digital media in general. Although the future of the poster is uncertain, but everything points to the coexistence between its print and digital realm.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.013 |
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".