Domesticating the Planets: Instruments and Practices in the Development of Planetary Geology
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 roles played by instruments and their associated practices in the development of the field of planetary geology. Specifically, remote sensing instruments and the images produced by instrument users are discussed. It is argued that through these instruments and images the first two generations of planetary geologists were able to 'domesticate' the planets and make them suitable for geological study. But this was not a straightforward process. The instruments themselves had to be 'domesticated' as geological tools, and the definition of 'geologist' had to be broadened to include such tools and extraterrestrial terrains. This paper looks first at the first generation of planetary geologists associated with the mapping and study of the Moon in the 1960s and 70s, then focuses on the second generation that emerged during the exploration and mapping of Mars. Within this second section, the paper focuses on the introduction of one new type of instrument -- the orbiting infrared spectrometer, and examines three such instruments and the visual claims made with its images.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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