A History of Neglect: Negotiating the Role of Safety in the Manhattan Project, 1939-1945
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role of safety within the Manhattan Project, the Allied effort to build an atomic bomb during World War II. As an integral component of the American national defense strategy, the atomic bomb project was afforded tremendous resources and incorporated the expertise of the country's top scientists, engineers, government officials, and military personnel. As a result, considerable Scientific and technological achievement was realized The Manhattan Project marked an important point in the ascendancy of science and technology throughout the twentieth century. However, the largely political and military goals of the project had consequences. Insufficient knowledge was gained regarding radiation hazards as a result of a preoccupation with speedy and secretive nuclear weapons development and the difficulty scientists had conducting health-related research. This paper argues that safety concerns were secondary to speed and secrecy in the search for the world's first atomic bomb.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it