MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6982354076

THE IMPACT OF WORLD WAR I ON RELATIVITY PART I

2018· article· en· W6982354076 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePolicing Practices and Perceptions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBelligerentSurpriseContext (archaeology)GermanBattleWorld War IISpanish Civil WarUncanny
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

From an astronomical and relativistic point of view, the Great War began with the August, 1914 capture and imprisonment of the members of a German eclipse expedition that had gone to the Crimea to look, at the request of Einstein, for bending of starlight by the sun.And it ended in 1919 with the Eddington-inspired measurements of that light bending from Principe and Sobral and with the founding of the International Astronomical Union by scientists from "the countries at war with the Central Powers."In between came unprecedented, and in some ways unequaled, death and destruction.The scientists lost were mostly too young to have made an impact (Henry Moseley and Karl Schwarzschild are exceptions), but many of the best-known of the next generation had, if citizens of the belligerent countries, served on the battle lines, and most of the rest contributed in some other way.It may come as a surprise to find that both theoretical physics and observational astronomy of relevance to general relativity continued to take place and that there was a certain amount of communication of results, information, and even goods in both directions.The early post-war years saw something of a flowering of the subject, before the majority of physicists turned their attention to quantum mechanics and astronomers to stellar physics, though both had already been under consideration during the war.War-based bitterness between French and German scholars was surely part of the context in which Einstein and Henri Bergson faced off on 6 April 1922, in a debate on the nature of time, as part of an Einsteinian visit to Paris that had originally been planned for Fall, 1914. Those eclipse expeditions and how I came to the projectMany years ago, I investigated whether scientific papers had grown monotonically longer more or less forever (the answer was a qualified yes) 5 .This was somehow in mind early in 2011 when I walked past the library shelves of Nature and noticed how skinny the volumes had become through the years 1915-19.A ha! Thought I: I wonder how else World War I shows up there.So I picked up the first August, 1914 issue and started to read, eventually examining every page 1914-19 and later back to 1908 and forward to 1923.Within a couple of issues, there was the report of a Berlin eclipse expedition to the Crimea under Erwin Freundlich having been captured and imprisoned.Paul Halpern 6 tells us more about the background, and issues of Sirius * and Nature more about the outcome.World War II has been called the physicists' war (meaning radar, rockets, and fission bombs) and World War I the chemists' war (poison gases, of course, but also urgent need, in the face of various blockades, for nitrogen fixation, synthetic rubber and petroleum, dye stuffs, optical glass, and much else).Not surprisingly, in fact, no part of science, technology, or engineering came through either war unaffected.A handful of items that do not belong to us here include the first (accidentally) placebo-controlled test of vaccination (for typhoid fever), demonstration that round craters could come from oblique impacts, the first aircraft carrier, reluctant welcoming of women into industrial labs and production facilities, and a brief moment when Canada had the world's largest telescope.I have spoken about many such items at meetings on physics, chemistry, and astronomy, and hope some day to get it all on paper (or whatever anybody might be reading by then).This is the second installment.The first, "Who got Moseley's Prize?" (meaning the Nobel he had been nominated for in 1915 just before he was shot at Gallipoli, and the answer is Charles Barkla), is in an American Chemical Society book 7 .

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,010
Communication savante0,0070,005
Science ouverte0,0000,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,328
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Même sujetPolicing Practices and PerceptionsTravaux en français237 207