MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153769980

Wiring the World: A History of the Earth System Concept in the US Earth Sciences, 1982-1989

2020· dissertation· W3153769980 on OpenAlex
Jenifer Barton

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueTSpace · 2020
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaEcological Society of AmericaU.S. Geological SurveyWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationBeijing Key Laboratory of Green Recycling and Extraction of MetalsU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of DefenseNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEarth (classical element)AstrobiologyEarth system scienceEarth scienceGeologyPhysicsAstronomyOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earth scientists today tend to view the planet as an integrated system comprised of interconnected components in the air, land, water, and biota. Earth scientists overwhelmingly use one particular phrase to describe this understanding of the planet: the “Earth system.” How did it become possible to conceive of the Earth as a system? When did “Earth system” become a common phrase? What were the principal factors that led to the concept’s later entrenchment? This dissertation addresses these questions by examining the emergence of the “Earth system” concept among US scientists in the 1980s. While the “global” capacities afforded by post-World War II Earth observing satellites and computer modeling may have been necessary for the conception of the Earth as a system, this dissertation argues that they were not sufficient. There is an important sociological component to the history of the Earth system. The Earth system concept has bureaucratic origins that trace to the mid-1980s and the work of a small group of scientists, the Earth System Sciences Committee. This Committee—formed by NASA’s Advisory Council—developed and promoted a research program called “Earth system science” that would take the whole planet as an object of study. Earth system science failed to gain extensive contemporary support, but the committee’s phrase “Earth system” was widely adopted. I argue that the “Earth system” phrase became entrenched despite the failure of the larger project not because it was well defined but because it was vague. By the 1960s, scientists increasingly perceived satellites and global computer models as supporting the idea that the Earth had interconnected parts that required interdisciplinary study. There was, however, little agreement about how to express this imprecise idea. The phrase “Earth system” was vague enough to adequately fill this semantic void. It served as a boundary object between different scientific disciplines, with enough interpretive flexibility to be narrowly defined by specialists while at the same time being broad enough to facilitate interdisciplinary communication. Vagueness, not analytical precision, thus facilitated the early spread and widespread adoption of the Earth system concept and contributed to its later entrenchment in the Earth sciences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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