Les chercheurs français dans les projets Manhattan et Tube Alloys, 1939-1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation focuses on the French physicists who conducted research on nuclear fission between June 1940 and December 1945, first in England and later in Canada. The two founding members of the group, Hans Halban and Lew Kowarski, both Jewish emigrants, were originally part of the Collège de France research group set up by Frédéric Joliot, which had filed the first patents on the production of energy via nuclear fission. Building upon the techniques developed in Joliot's group just before the war and transferring precious heavy water to England during the collapse of France, these scientists joined the British nuclear research program Tube Alloys. Along with other French scientists, They were witnesses to, and sometimes actors in, the confrontation between the British and the Americans for the mastery of this new energy, acquiring in the process – despite the constraints of secrecy – the know-how that lead to a quick revival of nuclear research in France and the creation of a new research organization, Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique. This thesis shows the continuity between their pre-war research and the realization of the first French nuclear pile in 1948.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".