MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559383132 · doi:10.3138/cjh.49.2.347

<i>Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age</i>, by W. Bernard Carlson

2014· article· en· W2559383132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillaume de Syon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of History · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Communication, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)OriginalityMythologyBiographyArgument (complex analysis)Power (physics)SociologyLawClassicsArt historyHistorySocial sciencePolitical sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age, by W. Bernard Carlson. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2013. xiii, 500 pp. $29.95 US (cloth). The inventor of the alternative current (AC) motor that forms the basis of electrical power supply ended up relatively unknown. Popular culture, however, would eventually recast him in mythical proportions, thereby skewing the historical record. Carlson's fascinating biography of Nikola Tesla thus sheds new light on the inventor, explaining his contributions to applied science and teasing out the basis of popular myths. Carlson's textured argument combines Tesla's background, his social interactions, thought process, inventions, together with the visionary yet impractical conceptualizations that contributed to create the Tesla myth. To do so, Carlson uses the sociology of invention as a framework that examines inventors' cognitive processes and emotional expressions as they construct their work. Tesla's originality, Carlson finds, consisted in not separating the two processes, thus departing from the practices identified in other inventors. As he did in his earlier studies of Edison and Graham Bell, Carlson interweaves expertly the biographical elements of his subject with the latter's science. Biographers often choose to emphasize the context of inventors' lives over the scientific aspect. Carlson, however, has opted for both, which helps explain the length of his detailed work, one as concerned with the intricate business dealings of the inventor as his peculiar behavior. Born in the nineteenth century of Serbian background, Nikola Tesla belongs to a generation of Central European scientists and engineers who eventually emigrated to the United States in search of success. Carlson is particularly careful in weighing cultural differences in light of Tesla's brief work at Edison's laboratories. He stresses that the nature of Tesla as an inventor with an ego should also come into consideration lest anyone claim a conflict between him and Edison. Carlson's measure discussion is especially noticeable in his technical explanations of Tesla. First reminding readers of the importance of Faraday's electromagnetic induction, and its relevance to Tesla's contributions, the author further frames the existing knowledge that surrounded Tesla's decision to work on AC in 1878. In so doing, Carlson shows that Tesla's choice involved a conceptual approach to an electric motor as a system rather than a single unit. Such a cognitive style contrasted with Edison, who was more adjusted to tinkering. As Carlson points out on multiple occasions, Tesla did not fit the mold of the brilliant inventor with limited business acumen. In fact, the father of AC understood the need for showcasing, as exemplified in the famous picture (a montage, it turns out) of the inventor reading quietly beneath giant lightning bolts. Not everything in the book will please Tesla enthusiasts. Carlson's rigorous investigation, for example, dispels the myth of a vendetta between banker J. P. Morgan, Edison, and Tesla, showing instead an investor who simply lost interest in the Serbian emigre's work. Similarly, the wilder claims about Tesla's magnetic work and related speculation find little space in Carlson's book because it lacks enough documentation that would lend itself to historical analysis. …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HistorySame topicMedia, Communication, and EducationFrench-language works237,207