"To Acquire What Knologe You Can": Thomas Jefferson as Exploration Patron and Planner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PERHAPS no American president wrote more letters to more correspondents about a wider range of subjects than Thomas Jefferson. It was as if he composed his life and world with pen and paper. Of all those letters, one stands out as central document for American exploration of West. Dated in Washington 20 June 1803 but undoubtedly drafted earlier, Jefferson's letter of exploration instructions for Meriwether Lewis became defining document, fundamental charter for government exploration beyond wide Missouri. Our friend and colleague Ted Carter knew that letter well because, as I will explain in a moment, an earlier version of it is here at American Philosophical Society. In one letter Jefferson defined nature and methodology of scientific exploration, made it a national priority, and then handed that mission to United States Army. No single piece of writing had greater influence on day-to-day business of exploration for rest of nineteenth century-and perhaps even into our own time-than president's letter to Lewis. Some sixteen years after Jefferson wrote to Lewis, secretary of War John C. Calhoun busied himself preparing directions for first government reconnaissance of central Great Plains. At end of those detailed guidelines, secretary simply told Major Stephen H. Long to consult what Jefferson had written for Lewis. In not much more than a decade and a half, Jefferson's letter had become acknowledged master plan for exploring West. We think of exploration as a journey through a physical landscape, a journey that has a beginning at some particular place along route. But most important beginnings are ones made before leaving home. They are explorations into country of mind. Exploration beginnings are most often found in questions because at heart exploration is about inquiry. Lewis and Clark-and all those who followed after them-questioned their way West. For most explorers in Euro-American tradition those questions came as formal, written instructions. Think of those instruction documents as program: exploration software to run expedition hardware. Such written instructions were nothing new for Jefferson and his contemporaries. England's Royal Society had been giving travelers and merchants lists of questions for nearly fifty years. But by middle of eighteenth century-thanks in large part to Enlightenment's passion for orderly, rational inquiryexploration instructions took on a new shape and substance. Those instructions shifted attention from exotic to useful, from personal adventure to cooperative enterprise and careful observation, from individual glory to national power and imperial expansion. That redefinition of exploration instructions was largely work of Sir Joseph Banks and an intellectual-imperial circle that involved mariners, scholars, and bureaucrats in Royal Society and Admiralty. More than any other single figure, Banks embodied and defined Enlightenment exploration and its global reach. Patron, planner, and sometime participant in Cook and Vancouver enterprises, Banks was what one contemporary called the common Center of we Discoverers. For voyage after voyage, Banks wrote instructions; others did sailing. Banks and Jefferson neither met nor corresponded but they had remarkably parallel lives and careers. Both were presidents of their nations' most distinguished scholarly societies-Banks at Royal Society, and Jefferson at this venerable institution. Both were avid botanists, placing great emphasis on discovery of new plants for foodstuffs and medicines. Both cultivated large and far-flung circles of correspondents. Both placed useful knowledge at center of scientific pursuit. Both insisted that such knowledge was always to be in service of imperial expansion. Both were patrons of art and science of exploration. And both knew that exploration was a complex business demanding many minds and many hands. …
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.010 |
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".