MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595988026 · doi:10.1086/690778

Jason Sean Ridler. <i>Maestro of Science: Omond McKillop Solandt and Government Science in War and Hostile Peace, 1939–1956</i>. xv + 350 pp., figs., tables, bibl., index. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. $55 (cloth).

2017· article· en· W2595988026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric L. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueIsis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Index (typography)State (computer science)World War IISpanish Civil WarHistoryPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyLibrary scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous articleNext article FreeJason Sean Ridler. Maestro of Science: Omond McKillop Solandt and Government Science in War and Hostile Peace, 1939–1956. xv + 350 pp., figs., tables, bibl., index. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. $55 (cloth).Eric L. MillsEric L. Mills Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreAt the outset, Jason Ridler tells us that “the history of government science in Britain and Canada could not be told without the legacy of Omond Solandt” (p. 19). This is not hyperbole, for Solandt, although little known now, was an increasingly important figure in the development of defense science in Britain and Canada from the beginning of World War II through the Cold War period. Later he took on a series of varied and important tasks for industry and government in Canada, with less visibility but significant importance, such as research for Canadian National Railways and consulting with the committee investigating the Ocean Ranger oil rig disaster of 1982. Maestro of Science gives us a detailed and meticulously researched view of an administrative virtuoso at work and provides background to the state of science in Britain, Canada, and the United States that is relevant to present-day science policy.Omond Solandt (1909–1983) was born in Manitoba but raised mainly in Toronto in a Congregationalist family. His university career, aimed at medicine, involved training in physiology at the University of Toronto, eventually under the influence of the eminent Charles Best. Best directed Solandt to Cambridge, where he appeared to be destined for a career in clinical medicine and teaching. But World War II intervened, and, like many other academics, Solandt threw himself into the war effort, first as the director of a blood transfusion clinic in the London area; then, as his extraordinary talents for getting results were recognized, as leader of a group studying the operational aspects of tank warfare; and ultimately as superintendent of the British Army’s Operational Research Group, involved in many other aspects of defense research. As the war ended, Solandt, the only Canadian, joined a group designated by the British War Office to visit Japan and report on the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. In 1945, when the Canadian government looked for a leader of its prospective defense research establishment, he returned to Canada, becoming chairman of the Defence Research Board of Canada (DRB) when it was formally established in 1947. Until his retirement from the DRB in 1956, Solandt was involved in developing and administering nearly all aspects of Canada’s defense research, including the potential outcomes of atomic warfare, radar detection of incoming Soviet bombers and, later, ICBMs, the use of chemical and biological weapons, and the development of Canadian guided missiles and supersonic aircraft. His influence within the Canadian government was considerable, and he developed and maintained important links with Britain and the United States, capitalizing on his long-established contacts in Britain as well as making new ones in the United States.In a comprehensive and insightful introduction, Ridler explores the advantages and disadvantages of a biographical approach to a career as complex and unusual as Solandt’s, making the case that the combination of his intellect, training, and practical abilities outweighs the consequent de-emphasis of attention to organizations and broader events. In this case, I think that Ridler has made the right choice in his approach to such a noteworthy—and exceptionally effective—figure, giving us a very clear view of the successes and failures of a talented scientist-administrator. This is not to say that some disadvantages do not accrue to his approach. Organizations and people do tend to appear abruptly, only to disappear without a trace. The significance of some scientific organizations and many political events is sometimes not clear. Some technical problems, although minor, could have been corrected by the usually impeccable University of Toronto Press during the reviewing and proof stages of production. Among these flaws, many of Solandt’s associates appear without first names or initials. Acronyms are rife, and not all are listed in an otherwise helpful guide. A few organizations are misnamed. The index is woefully short and totally unsatisfactory.Technical flaws aside, this book is an important contribution to our knowledge of how some branches of science—notably defense science—developed during and after World War II in the hands of a master administrator. This period does not lack its literature, but Ridler’s approach, examining in detail the career of one important player, Omond Solandt, a Canadian whose career spanned the Atlantic and came to take in the United States as well, provides fascinating insight into a fine-grained history—the experiences of a scientist-administrator balancing the demands of research and the political imperatives of the wartime and postwar worlds. Notes Eric L. Mills is Professor Emeritus of History of Science, Dalhousie University, and Inglis Professor, University of King’s College, Halifax. He works on the history of oceanography and on the history of marine sciences in Canada. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 108, Number 1March 2017 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/690778 © 2017 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1640.100

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsisSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207