"The Insanities of an Exalted Imagination": The Troubled First Geological Survey of Pennsylvania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY witnessed a burgeoning demand for basic geological knowledge in the United States. Perhaps nowhere was this more true than in Pennsylvania, possessor of the largest coal and iron deposits in the eastern states. The nascent academic and scientific geology community claimed a special role in this endeavor. If knowledge is power, so also is wealth, contended the geologists, and no matter how basic or descriptive the research, the commonwealth would ultimately be greatly enriched by their efforts.1 In contrast, capitalists did not pause to await the results of scientific investigation in their haste to assemble an industrial empire, relying instead on common sense, practical experience, and mechanical innova tion. In this paper I trace the first geological survey of Pennsylvania, led by University of Pennsylvania professor Henry Darwin Rogers, com menced in 1836 for a five-year term, but not officially completed until 1858. I emphasize the broader frameworks of commerce, politics, and scientific thought that defined and shaped the survey, rather than its specific geological findings. Indeed, these findings were widely consid ered to be of marginal scientific and economic value even in their time.2 In the early 1830s, Tennessee and Massachusetts became the first states to authorize comprehensive statewide geological surveys. By the end of the decade, fourteen other states had followed suit, Pennsylvania
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".