MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1999678031 · doi:10.1353/tech.2013.0092

Progressive Enlightenment: The Origins of the Gaslight Industry, 1780-1820 by Leslie Tomory (review)

2013· article· en· W1999678031 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueTechnology and Culture · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistory of Science and Medicine
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEnlightenmentContext (archaeology)Industrial RevolutionSubject (documents)NarrativeArt historySociologyHistoryLawPolitical scienceArtLibrary scienceLiteraturePhilosophyArchaeologyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Progressive Enlightenment: The Origins of the Gaslight Industry, 1780-1820 by Leslie Tomory Chris Castaneda (bio) Progressive Enlightenment: The Origins of the Gaslight Industry, 1780-1820. By Leslie Tomory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012. Pp. x+348. $28. In Progressive Enlightenment, Leslie Tomory presents a highly detailed description of the European origins of gas lighting. The concise narrative places the background and development of early gas-lighting experiments and ventures deeply within the context of the Industrial Revolution, with a nod to the recent work of Joel Mokyr that explores the influence of the Enlightenment on that era. Tomory then traces the process of designing the technology needed to establish stand-alone gas-light plants, followed by the development of urban gas-lighting networks. Currently a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at McGill University, Tomory based this well-researched book on his dissertation; he has also written other essays and articles on this subject (see, for example, "Building the First Gas Network, 1812-1820," Technology and Culture 52, no. 1 [2011]: 75-102). The book is organized into three parts. In the first, Tomory explores early European experiments in pneumatic chemistry and industrial distillation. This section examines the work of Philippe Lebon in France and William Murdoch in Britain in particular and posits that Enlightenment-era public science contributed to the dissemination of knowledge of pneumatic chemistry that provided a foundation for gas lighting. Tomory also argues that Murdoch's emphasis on using coal as a feedstock, as opposed to wood, proved decisive in Britain's early success in developing viable and sustainable gas-lighting systems. Part 2 is an in-depth examination of the firm Boulton & Watt, of which Murdoch was a longtime employee, and its involvement in developing commercially viable, stand-alone gas plants. The installation of gas lighting at the textile firm of Philips & Lee marked Boulton & Watt's first large commercial gas facility. The book's final section describes the literal trials and tribulations of the formation and early years of the Gas Light and Coke Company (GLCC) of London that, in 1812, began distributing gas in Europe's most populous city. In supporting the theme of British exceptionalism in the Industrial Revolution, Tomory argues that gas lighting "was the earliest case in which the Enlightenment dream of science at the service of industry actually worked in an important way" (p. 3). According to him, the advent of gas lighting thus further confirms Britain's role as the Industrial Revolution's prime mover. While he is not the first to note the emergence of gas lighting within this context, Tomory's careful attention to detailing this story with the aid of abundant archival and other primary-source documentation is impressive. Clearly, it was the engineers and entrepreneurs who transformed gaslight from laboratory experiment to commercial enterprise. [End Page 661] Boulton & Watt's success at selling individual gas-lighting plants to textile firms was based on the idea that each customer would have its own gas plant—which had obvious limitations. It was the German-born Frederick Winsor who, Tomory writes, had no talent for engineering though strong entrepreneurial skills, who founded the GLCC and implemented the network model for urban gas distribution. Tomory also correctly points out that the management structure and technological networks of the early gaslight firms exhibited characteristics similar to those of the railroad industry decades later that Alfred Chandler identified as the first modern business enterprises. Although the title of Tomory's work suggests a wider geographic perspective on the origins of gas lighting, he focuses exclusively on Europe, and Britain in particular. Yet, Tomory does briefly reflect on Thomas Edison and Chicago utility-magnate Samuel Insull and their network-building in the United States years later. Regarding Edison, he notes that his electric power systems were inspired by gas networks "whose basic model was first developed by the GLCC" (p. 236). But Edison was actually inspired more directly by the existing gas-light system in New York City; he initially planned to use gas-distribution lines as conduits for insulated electrical wires, and then replace the gas-light fixtures with those for electric lights in the process of quickly replacing the...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,413
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,212
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle