7 Swedish Neutrality and Leadership of the International Society for the Study of Biological Rhythm in the 1940s and 1950s
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The second meeting of the International Society for the Study of Biological Rhythm was convened in Utrecht, 25-26 August 1939. If there had been hints that all was not well in Europe at the time of the 1937 meeting, the atmosphere must have been positively tense for the second one. Two days before the meeting began, Hitler and Stalin agreed to partition Poland (23 August), and Germany launched its offensive by the end of the next week ( 1 September), triggering World War II. The Society's planning had gone on in spite of the political tensions in Germany and the hostilities in the Far East, and, with the exception of Arthur Jores (from nearby Hamburg) and Hans Kalmus (German, but now a resident of London), the officers elected in Ronneby were from relatively neutral nations. Of the nine named in the published records of the Societas from the Utrecht meeting, the majority (five) were from Sweden, including the president, vice president, the secretarytreasurer, and the two auditors; and two were from Holland.1 This slate of officers was the same as that elected in Ronneby, with the addition of F. Gerritzen, the leader of the conference in Utrecht, as another board member.2The membership of the new Society had grown quickly since its formation. The report presented by the council to the membership at this 1939 meeting identified 68 members, and a footnote inserted before the publication of the proceedings in 1940 indicated that several new members had joined after the meeting. The total number identified by name in the published proceedings is 78, almost half of whom were Swedes (37), almost a sixth Germans (12), and the rest from other countries (5 Dutch, 5 American, 4 Swiss, 3 Norwegian, 3 Finnish, 2 Danish, and one member each from Algeria, Argentina, Italy, Canada, Turkey, England, and the Soviet Union).* Of the five members listed from the United States, John Welsh from Harvard was probably known in Europe, owing to his research on crustacean rhythms, and perhaps also T. H. -Bissonnette, who had published many articles, including one on photoperiodicity.4 William F. Petersen from Chicago was broadly interested in correlating the cyclical nature of all cosmic occurrences and not engaged in experimental scientific research specifically in biological rhythms, but his work is nevertheless referenced in the European literature. The same can be said of the Soviet member, Alexander Chizhevskii (spelled Tchijevsky in the list).Clearly, the Swedish members of the new Society dominated both its membership and leadership, and this dominance was also manifest financially. Whereas the proceedings of the 1937 meeting were later published in two issues of the German professional medical journal Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrifft at the authors' expense and without mention of the Societas, its leaders (no doubt mainly President Forsgren and Vice President Mollerstrom) had now secured a gift from Sweden's Consul-General, Hugo Duhs and his wife, to cover the costs of publishing the proceeds of the Utrecht meeting as a special issue of the Swedish-dominated medical journal, Aeta Medica Scandinavica. Control of the new Society was thus even more closely tied to Stockholm and de facto to medicine.5The 1939 meeting was formally opened by Erik Forsgren, who began by reporting on the foundation of the Society and its interdisciplinary nature:In August two years ago a small flock of Rhythm enthusiasts, representatives of botany, medicine, and zoology, gathered in Ronneby (Sweden) at the first international conference on biological rhythm research. Today we are pleased that so many distinguished scholars have accepted our invitation and complied, that besides the already mentioned sciences, mathematics and now meteorology are represented.6The creation of a new Society had clearly been warranted, he argued, both by the demand that was evident in the current turnout for the second meeting and by the special nature of the subject matter. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».