MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Intellectual Journey of Hua Loo-keng from China to the Institute for Advanced Study: His Correspondence with Hermann Weyl

2013· article· en· W1782671168 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean W. Richard, Abdramane Sermé

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in mathematical sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGermanMathematicsLooArt historyClassicsPhilosophyHistoryLinguisticsComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the intellectual journey of the self-taught Chinese mathematician Hua Loo-keng (1910-1985) from Southwest Associated University (Kunming, Yunnan, China) to the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.  The paper seeks to show how during the Sino – Japanese war, a genuine cross-continental mentorship grew between the prolific German mathematician Hermann Weyl (1885-1955) and the gifted mathematician Hua Loo-keng.  Their correspondence offers a profound understanding of a solidarity-building effort that can exist in the scientific community.  Hermann Weyl had a profound influence on Hua Loo-keng and facilitated his coming to the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.  Hua Loo-keng who left school at the age of fifteen was able to produce considerable work in number theory, algebra, geometry, and complex analysis.  Hermann Weyl had interests that covered wide subfields of mathematics and was also involved in the development of general theory of relativity alongside Albert Einstein.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in mathematical sciencesSame topicHistory and Theory of MathematicsFrench-language works237,207