A history of the North-American critical discourse in comunication (genealogical network(s) between radicalism and moderation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article est consacré à la généalogie du discours universitaire critique nord-américain au sein des études en communication media studies, communication studies ou journalism studies. En prenant appui sur la sociologie de la science, l'étude proposée souligne la filiation entre les générations ascendantes et descendantes de chercheurs critiques. En prenant pour exemple des universitaires phares de Herbert Schiller à Robert McChesney et des facultés nord-américaines emblématiques de la cartographie universitaire critique en communication (Urbana-Champaign ou encore Burnaby), réunis par les conférences d associations scientifiques, nous nous intéressons à retracer la construction et le développement du discours académique dissident nord-américain (néo)marxien ou simplement progressiste. Notre recherche s'étend de la genèse critique (années 1950-1970), personnalisée par les universitaires critiques pionniers de l'étude en économie politique et des études culturelles, jusqu'à son apogée (années 1980-2000), symbolisée par deux nouvelles générations de chercheurs. Il apparaît évident que, lors de la production du savoir scientifique, la logique intergénérationnelle, l approche théorique et l activisme idéologique, se complètent.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".