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
In the late 1950s, a wide-ranging debate erupted over the seemingly innocuous question of how transistors—the revolutionary new electronic devices—should be drawn. By forcing a break in the long-standing traditions of electronic drawing, transistors generated a crisis in the ontology of circuit diagrams, forcing a choice between representations that emphasized form and those that stressed function. This paper explores what was at stake in that mid-century debate over visual culture. It tracks one function-based symbol through concerns about auto-comprehension, visual communication, and electronic reliability to see how transistor symbols formed crucial sites for articulating the meanings of material devices and their relationship to the wider populations of electronic entities, especially vacuum tubes. In doing so, the article shifts the emphasis in the history of electronics from material to visual culture, recasting our understanding of postwar electronics as a history of drawings as well as devices.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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