Enchanting things: the scientific communication of Julius Sumner Miller
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the popular educational broadcasting of Julius Sumner Miller and its intersections with contemporary science policy and education. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on archival research including resources so far unused by historians of science or of broadcasting and audio-visual resources of Sumner Miller’s broadcasts on Australian, Canadian and American television. It begins by contextualising Sumner Miller as both an academic and broadcaster. The second section interprets the core points of his educational philosophy which he articulated in his written and broadcast works. The final section uses his private papers contextualised by works on the history and philosophy of science to interpret and delineate the disparity between Sumner Miller’s influence as a populariser of science and the prevailing trends in scientific policy and teaching. Findings This paper proposes that reconstructing the themes and recurring points he asserted in his broadcasts reveals disjunction between Sumner Miller’s high-profile successes and the contemporary trends in both science policy and science education. This paper interprets the circumstance of an internationally known and influential science populariser who was coterminous with but against the grain of the notion of “big science”. He therefore sought to popularise science precisely as it was developing in ways he disparaged. Research limitations/implications This paper breaks new ground by interpreting the different sources, audio-visual and written, created by and about an influential television broadcaster. Originality/value Although he was widely and internationally known, and the range of his influence on science communication is generally noted, Sumner Miller’s broadcasting and the themes and educational philosophy espoused in it is little researched and contextualised. This paper sharpens understanding of his influence but also his points of intersection and disjunction with scientific culture. Hitherto unused archival resources contribute to this understanding.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".