MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017324571 · doi:10.7202/1006928ar

Biography of an Artifact: The Theratron Junior and Canada’s Atomic Age

2011· article· en· W2017324571 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Pantalony

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExhibitionArtifact (error)BiographyNarrativeVisual artsArt historyAestheticsHistoryArtSociologyComputer scienceLiteratureArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I examine the life of an artifact, the Theratron Junior, a sleek green radiotherapy machine from 1956 displayed in a permanent exhibit at the Canada Science and Technology Museum. It is currently seen through the lens of Canadian innovations, but the Theratron Junior brims with features and history that touch on several other historical narratives—scientific, commercial, labour, aesthetics and patient experience. The striking “sea foam” green paint, for example, has inspired an independent exhibition at the museum on the colour green in twentieth-century medicine. In addition, research into the former life of the specific machine on display (serial no. 15 from 1956), including the people who made and used it, has produced a reinvigorated artifact biography that enriches and challenges conventional narratives from Canada’s early atomic era. The lessons from careful artifact studies are readily clear—we are missing opportunities by taking for granted the most familiar items on our museum floors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0370.033
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and MedicineSame topicTwentieth Century Scientific DevelopmentsFrench-language works237,207