Lokale Mediengeschichte(n) und Post-McLuhanismus:Zum McLuhan Kongress in Toronto 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text is inspired by the conference then – now – next. McLuhan Centenary Conference from 7th – 10th of November 2011 at the University of Toronto, Canada. This summary of the conference aims to look at the state of the art of contemporary media studies via reflections on McLuhan beginning from two points: First, the essay emphasizes research in local conditions of media. In this context, what is not yet well known is that McLuhan and the anthropologist Edmund Carpenter started locally based media research early in the 1960s, in order better to describe a-perspective and multi-sensorial acoustic space, which they did by projecting this concept onto tribal cultures. Whereas McLuhan’s studies have been focused on ethnocentric and media-deterministic views, Carpenter’s work, as well as contemporary located media research, overcome this orientation by meditating on the genesis of their own methods. Consequently, the analysis of McLuhan’s ethnic media theory is herein shown to be critical to understanding and better assessing his central methodological and epistemological questions. Second, this conference summary also circumscribes the trajectories of current branches in Post-McLuhan scholarship, notably various gestures in media-ecology that underline the generative, somatic relations between media and humans. This problematic set of questions helps trace the ways in which McLuhan’s concepts are now developing their own legacy, including new experiences in media-anthropomorphism and rampant affection for irrational media-fascinations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".