“Science. Not Just For Scientists. A Historiographical Analysis of the Changing Interpretations of the Scientific Revolution”
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, the Scientific Revolution has been portrayed as an era in history when new developments in fields of ‘scientific’ thought eclipsed the long-held notions presented by religion and philosophy. Historical interpretations subscribing to this view have often presented the Scientific Revolution as a time when significant changes occurred in the way societies understood their world. These historical analyses have focused on a limited suite of ideas – the iconic figures of the Scientific Revolution, the intellectual, methodological and theoretical developments of the era and the shift away from antiquated worldviews. Owing to the decidedly intellectual foci of these investigations, the Scientific Revolution, and the influential figures therein, are depicted as the impetus for modern thought and society as we know it today. However, in recent decades, historical studies of the Scientific Revolution have shifted away from investigations emphasizing the supposedly progressive nature of the era and have chosen to observe aspects of the historical period that are significantly more cultural in tone. For instance, aspects such as the economic impacts of intellectual developments, the self-fashioning practiced by figures during the period and the importance of cultivating various social relationships are observed in order to provide a richer, more socially contextualized presentation of the Scientific Revolution. This paper will compare two modes of historical investigation – Intellectual and Cultural Historical, examine the changes that have occurred in historical interpretations of the Scientific Revolution and illustrate the motivations that have guided these two distinct approaches to history. This historiographical analysis will show how portrayals of the Scientific Revolution have changed over time and developed from something decidedly intellectual in focus, into a much more nuanced, culturally focused form of scholarship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it