The Atomic Cloister: Secrecy and the Shaping of Technical Identity, 1940-60
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During five wartime years and the following post-war decade, atomic energy was a subject shrouded in secrecy. Identified as a crucial element in military strategy, national status and export aspirations, the research and development of atomic piles (nuclear chain-reactors) were nurtured at isolated installations. Like monastic orders, new national laboratories provided occupational environments that were simultaneously cosseted and constrained, defining regional variants of a new State-managed discipline: reactor engineering. This paper discusses the significance of secrecy in defining the new subject in the USA, UK and Canada – the first three countries to dedicate sustained government funding to the field. The borders and content of the subject developed differently in each country, shaped under the umbrella of security by disparate clusters of expertise, industrial traditions and national goals. The emerging academic discipline was constricted by classified publications and State-sponsored specialist courses. The new experts were categorised largely according to existing occupational niches and union affiliations. And, the context of high security filtered their members and capped their professional aspirations. But these amply-funded and secluded environments traded intellectual segregation for unbounded opportunities. Like children in a toy factory (paraphrasing Alvin Weinberg), reactor engineers explored a new domain, sometimes with scarcely a sideways glance at social, economic or even strategic factors. The ambiguous and capricious goals of the new sites and their specialists gradually were tamed, though, as security measures diminished during the mid 1950s and commercial nuclear power was identified as the primary goal.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".