Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Letter from Pawsey to his mother, from Princeton end 1957:Pawsey’s 8½-month visit to the US in 1957–1958 occurred during a key period of the GRT deliberations (FFP design study completion at the end of 1957 and the site selection in early 1958). It also occurred in the context of shifts in relations within RPL and in the field of radio astronomy as it grew around the world. There was growing awareness in Australia about the increasing capacity, especially in the USA, to attract first-rate scientists overseas to lead the new research programs being established. Meanwhile, at RPL, Bowen’s frustrations with Pawsey were growing to such a degree that Pawsey was beginning to feel some disquiet about his position in CSIRO. An important outcome of Pawsey’s visit to the US was an unofficial “audition” for a leadership role in US radio astronomy. At this point Pawsey would realise that he would have more to offer a US community with its multiple new radio astronomy groups (similar to the multiple groups he had nurtured in the beginning of radio astronomy research in Australia), than the Australian groups which had become strong and less dependent on his leadership. Pawsey’s scientific interactions during this time were also important as he planned for the Paris Symposium of August 1958 in his role as chair of the IAU organising committee.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".