MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801455833 · doi:10.1353/tech.2018.0020

Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight ed. by Steven J. Dick

2018· article· en· W2801455833 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Culture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpaceflightAgency (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Societal impact of nanotechnologyValue (mathematics)ConversationPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesEngineeringSocial scienceComputer scienceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight ed. by Steven J. Dick Jordan Bimm (bio) Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight. Edited by Steven J. Dick. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015. Pp. ix+664. $59.99. This third volume in NASA History’s Societal Impact series, a series that emerged from a 2006 conference and the subsequent publication Societal Impact of Spaceflight (2007), focuses mostly on the Agency’s impact on technologies beyond the usual rockets, planes, and space capsules. This brings space history out of its niche and into conversation with the histories of atomic batteries, integrated circuits, medical devices, miniature accelerometers, and communications technologies. However, despite editor Steven J. Dick’s hope in his brief introduction that these studies will address “the mutual interaction of space exploration and society” (p. vii), many remain focused on scientists, engineers, and machines, leaving one wondering when “society” will show up. Historians of technology may also be unsatisfied with the impact model, a limitation flagged at the initial conference by Glen Asner, who noted that “the concept of societal impact is problematic” and called for assessments of “the influence of society on spaceflight.”* The tome’s nine chapters are organized into three sections: “Opinion,” “Spinoff?” and “The World At Large.” “Opinion” contains just one chapter, sociologist William Sims Bainbridge’s analysis of polls tracking Americans’ evolving attitudes about the prospects and inherent value of space-flight from the late 1940s to the near present. Bainbridge also leads off “Spinoff”—the volume’s most valuable and cohesive section—busting the myth that space exploration greatly benefits society through the transfer of technologies to the public for non-aerospace uses. Through an examination of a handful of obscure medical technologies (a bone density analyzer, anti-shock garments, memory foam, and a braille reader) promoted in the Agency’s annual Spinoff report, Bainbridge finds that nearly every case fails to meet a strict definition of the term, with NASA acting not as sole origin of groundbreaking tech, but as one of many interrelated supportive conduits in the military-academic-industrial-complex that innovations of varying significance pass through. In the next two chapters, Andrew Butrica tackles additional cases of [End Page 183] purported NASA spinoff: the famed integrated circuit, which he argues has become something of an “urban legend” thanks to their use in the Apollo guidance and navigation computer, and the lesser-known case of micro-electromechanical systems (MEMs), tiny accelerometers now ubiquitous in smartphones. Both chapters border on book-length (100 and 71 pages, respectively), and despite an accidentally repeated quote (p. 184), they reveal the complexity of engineering and funding networks inside and outside NASA that the tidy concept of spinoff obfuscates. Butrica concludes that isolating NASA’s contributions here is difficult, as critical data has been lost or merged with other “defense” entities like the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, and Atomic Energy Commission. He laments that determining the extent to which NASA’s sizable purchases of integrated circuits and internal work on their reliability really drove their massive proliferation is like “trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” (p. 244) In Chapter 5, Roger Launius offers a history of the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), the controversial nuclear power source NASA has used in many high-profile robotic spacecraft like Mars Pathfinder, Cassini, and the Voyager probes. Launius finally brings in “society,” explaining how atomic batteries debuted in space in 1961 but only became a touchstone for anti-nuclear and environmental protests in the late 1970s, following the uncontrolled reentry of the Soviet Kosmos 954 satellite, which scattered radioactive debris across northern Canada, and the Three Mile Island accident. Continuing the theme of planetary stewardship, W. Henry Lambright’s more general survey of space and environmentalism has only increased in importance since publication. He shows how NASA’s Earth Science program—now facing elimination by the Trump administration for conducting climate research—stemmed from astronaut Sally Ride’s 1987 recommendation for a “Mission to Planet Earth” (MTPE). The final three chapters include David J. Walen’s round-up of various types of commercial applications satellites (he argues communications satellites have the...

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · 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