Learning to Live with the Atom: US Public Opinion and International Control of Atomic Energy, 1945-1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of the atomic age at the end of the Second World War raised debates over how to protect the world from the dangers of the atomic bomb while promoting the peaceful uses of atomic energy. This could be achieved, scientists argued, only through the international control of atomic energy, which would secure nuclear technology and material under an international body. The devastation caused by a future nuclear war meant the problem affected everyone, everywhere, but as guardians of this unprecedented new weapon, Americans bore special responsibility for its future. Learning to Live with the Atom: US Public Opinion and International Control of Atomic Energy, 1945-1950 examines the two-way relationship between the American public and policymakers during the first years of the atomic age. By examining American diplomacy on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission alongside domestic public relations initiatives to engage the American people on nuclear issues, it tells a comprehensive story about how Americans tried to make sense of the fundamentally new world in which they lived and slowly came to terms with the emerging Cold War.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".