Footprints & Photographs : The Selection Of A Visual Story, A Study Of The Apollo 11 Photographs In The Illustrated Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Footprints and Photographs is a preliminary investigation of the selection process photographs undergo from production to eventual publication in the illustrated press. The analysis considers the roles and selection choices made by a photographic producer, a photo-agency, and picture-editors in two separate groups of Apollo 11 photographs and a selection of published Apollo 11 images. This argument presents a comparative analysis of nine illustrated publications with photographs of the Apollo 11 moon landing published between July and December 1969. The comparison is completed in conjuncture with 2,124 original Apollo 11 photographs in NASA's Online Image Library and 149 press photographs in the Black Star Collection held at Ryerson University. A literature survey and methodology section provides historical context and explanatory research methods employed throughout this paper. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are dedicated to the categorical analysis of each group of Apollo 11 photographs and outline the selection of imagery available for depiction of the event's narrative. By analyzing these three bodies of work as a whole, this thesis examines the narrowing perspective of the Apollo 11 photographs as they move through the stages of selection, concluding with their published accounts, and highlights the role this selection plays in building the visual narrative surrounding the first manned moon landing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".