MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6993193456

Nuclear Citizenship: Mary Kavanagh and Photography as Civil Resistance

2022· article· en· W6993193456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueD-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotographyPoliticsResistance (ecology)Public domainFrontierComplaintPublic spacePhotojournalismIntersection (aeronautics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the detonation of the Trinity Test in July 1945, the scientific and cultural consequences of weapons-testing in the United States and those consequences’ international entanglements have been mapped and visualized by artists working at the intersection between physics and photography. This dissertation outlines photography’s broad role in atomic history and subsequent public and cultural critique. Canadian artist-researcher Mary Kavanagh, along with her colleagues in the Atomic Photographers Guild, grapples with the motivations and realities of photography as a visualizing protocol and its later role in the interventionist politics of the United States. This dissertation’s accompanying online exhibition, Weaponized Landscapes: Trinity, makes public grievances and observations available to a wide domain of nuclear and Atomic-Age scholars, photographers, and artists. This suite recalls the methods enfolded in contemporary landscape photography’s history while speculating new, humanitarian futures that feature acute attention to civic complaint and conscientious responsiveness that underpin civic entitlements to space and wellbeing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.035
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueD-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)Same topicTwentieth Century Scientific DevelopmentsFrench-language works237,207