MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132868917

Learning to Live with the Atom: US Public Opinion and International Control of Atomic Energy, 1945-1950

2022· dissertation· W7132868917 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTwentieth Century Scientific Developments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsAtomic energyNuclear weaponDiplomacyPublic opinionPublic diplomacyCold warWorld War IICommission
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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