Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical development The study of stellar rotation began at the turn of the seventeenth century, when sunspots were observed for the first time through a refracting telescope. Measurements of the westward motion of these spots across the solar disk were originally made by Johannes Fabricius, Galileo Galilei, Thomas Harriot, and Christopher Scheiner. The first public announcement of an observation came from Fabricius (1587–c. 1617), a 24-year old native of East Friesland, Germany. His pamphlet, De maculis in Sole observatis et apparente earum cum Sole conversione , bore the date of dedication June 13, 1611 and appeared in the Narratio in the fall of that year. Fabricius perceived that the changes in the motions of the spots across the solar disk might be the result of foreshortening, with the spots being situated on the surface of the rotating Sun. Unfortunately, from fear of adverse criticism, Fabricius expressed himself very timidly. His views opposed those of Scheiner, who suggested that the sunspots might be small planets revolving around an immaculate, nonrotating Sun. Galileo made public his own observations in Istoria e Dimostrazioni intorno alle Macchie Solari e loro Accidenti . In these three letters, written in 1612 and published in the following year, he presented a powerful case that sunspots must be dark markings on the surface of a rotating Sun. Foreshortening, he argued, caused these spots to appear to broaden and accelerate as they moved from the eastern side toward the disk center.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.034 |
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".