MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2801455833 · doi:10.1353/tech.2018.0020

Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight ed. by Steven J. Dick

2018· article· en· W2801455833 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 · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueSpace exploration and regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpaceflightAgency (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Societal impact of nanotechnologyValue (mathematics)ConversationPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesEngineeringSocial scienceComputer scienceAerospace engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight ed. by Steven J. Dick Jordan Bimm (bio) Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight. Edited by Steven J. Dick. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015. Pp. ix+664. $59.99. This third volume in NASA History’s Societal Impact series, a series that emerged from a 2006 conference and the subsequent publication Societal Impact of Spaceflight (2007), focuses mostly on the Agency’s impact on technologies beyond the usual rockets, planes, and space capsules. This brings space history out of its niche and into conversation with the histories of atomic batteries, integrated circuits, medical devices, miniature accelerometers, and communications technologies. However, despite editor Steven J. Dick’s hope in his brief introduction that these studies will address “the mutual interaction of space exploration and society” (p. vii), many remain focused on scientists, engineers, and machines, leaving one wondering when “society” will show up. Historians of technology may also be unsatisfied with the impact model, a limitation flagged at the initial conference by Glen Asner, who noted that “the concept of societal impact is problematic” and called for assessments of “the influence of society on spaceflight.”* The tome’s nine chapters are organized into three sections: “Opinion,” “Spinoff?” and “The World At Large.” “Opinion” contains just one chapter, sociologist William Sims Bainbridge’s analysis of polls tracking Americans’ evolving attitudes about the prospects and inherent value of space-flight from the late 1940s to the near present. Bainbridge also leads off “Spinoff”—the volume’s most valuable and cohesive section—busting the myth that space exploration greatly benefits society through the transfer of technologies to the public for non-aerospace uses. Through an examination of a handful of obscure medical technologies (a bone density analyzer, anti-shock garments, memory foam, and a braille reader) promoted in the Agency’s annual Spinoff report, Bainbridge finds that nearly every case fails to meet a strict definition of the term, with NASA acting not as sole origin of groundbreaking tech, but as one of many interrelated supportive conduits in the military-academic-industrial-complex that innovations of varying significance pass through. In the next two chapters, Andrew Butrica tackles additional cases of [End Page 183] purported NASA spinoff: the famed integrated circuit, which he argues has become something of an “urban legend” thanks to their use in the Apollo guidance and navigation computer, and the lesser-known case of micro-electromechanical systems (MEMs), tiny accelerometers now ubiquitous in smartphones. Both chapters border on book-length (100 and 71 pages, respectively), and despite an accidentally repeated quote (p. 184), they reveal the complexity of engineering and funding networks inside and outside NASA that the tidy concept of spinoff obfuscates. Butrica concludes that isolating NASA’s contributions here is difficult, as critical data has been lost or merged with other “defense” entities like the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, and Atomic Energy Commission. He laments that determining the extent to which NASA’s sizable purchases of integrated circuits and internal work on their reliability really drove their massive proliferation is like “trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” (p. 244) In Chapter 5, Roger Launius offers a history of the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), the controversial nuclear power source NASA has used in many high-profile robotic spacecraft like Mars Pathfinder, Cassini, and the Voyager probes. Launius finally brings in “society,” explaining how atomic batteries debuted in space in 1961 but only became a touchstone for anti-nuclear and environmental protests in the late 1970s, following the uncontrolled reentry of the Soviet Kosmos 954 satellite, which scattered radioactive debris across northern Canada, and the Three Mile Island accident. Continuing the theme of planetary stewardship, W. Henry Lambright’s more general survey of space and environmentalism has only increased in importance since publication. He shows how NASA’s Earth Science program—now facing elimination by the Trump administration for conducting climate research—stemmed from astronaut Sally Ride’s 1987 recommendation for a “Mission to Planet Earth” (MTPE). The final three chapters include David J. Walen’s round-up of various types of commercial applications satellites (he argues communications satellites have 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 candidatesaucune
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 enseignants0,157
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,123

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 technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,317
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · 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