Ideas and Networks: The Rise and Fall of Research Bodies for Powered Artificial Arms in America and Canada, 1945-1977
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the rise and fall of research and development funding programs for upper-limb myoelectric prosthetics in America and Canada from 1945 to 1977. Despite similarities in overall technological goals, to produce electronic arms and hands for veterans in the US and children with phocomelic limbs in Canada, we argue that the reasons for starting and ending the programs reflected different national preoccupations. In the US the reasons for the creation in 1945 and termination in 1977 of funding programs focused on the lack of fundamental research in the field, and role that science could have in the development and design in prosthetics. In Canada, by contrast, there was little discussion about science and its relationship to technology in knowledge creation when the prosthetics research and training unit (PRTU) funding program was founded in 1963 and wound up in 1975. Instead, the policy discussion focused on the importance of regional representation and relationships among different professional groups and sectors of society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".