Science as a Medium of Communication between Germany and Russia in the 19th Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 29 — October 1 2010, the international conference “Science as a Medium of Communication between Germany and Russia in the 19th Century” gathered about 30 scholars from all over the world and some 20 local specialists to examine and dis-cuss various historical aspects of these bilateral scientific relations. Based on a long-term project at the Saxon Academy of Science and Humanities, the organizers succeeded in composing a remarkably interdisciplinary program, covering numerous facets of history of science – social, cultural, educational, institutional and intellectual history and history of medicine, biology, chemistry, pharmacy, psychology and geography. Two key-note speak-ers opened up the horizons and provided a European contextualisation: In his introductory speech, Dietrich von Engelhardt (Luebeck) described the international exchange of ideas at the beginning of the 19th century with special reference to Italy, while Matthias Middell (Leipzig) gave an inspiring analysis of the discontinuities in the French-Russian scientific and economic relations.The conference was opened with a warm welcome by the university principal Franz Haeuser, the vice-dean of the medical faculty Torsten Schoeneberg and the president of the Saxon Academy Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer. Preceding the special papers, vice-president Hei-ner Kaden outlined the long tradition of research in history of science at the Saxon Academy and the roots of the project on German-Russian scientifi c relations in the 19th century. The fi rst section was then dedicated to psychology and psychiatry: Saulo de Freitas Araujo (Brazil) discussed Wilhelm Wundt’s infl uence on Vladimir M. Bechterev’s concept of scientifi c psy-chology, Florian Mildenberger (Frankfurt/Oder) described the obstacles Emil Kraepelin met during his years at Dorpat, and Susanne Guski-Leinwand (Heidelberg) delineated Alexander Netchaev’s experimental psychology. Natal’ja Ju. Masolikova (Moscow) had sent her paper on personal connections between members of the Russian psychological society and Leipzig University. The second section dealt with hygiene as a new leading science in the 19th century, and the topic turned out to be one of the central points of interest during the conference. Florian Steger (Munich) addressed Max von Pettenkofer’s impact on the development of Public Health in Russia, Vladimir S. Sobolev (St. Petersburg) described the fi ght of the Russian naval forces against infectious diseases, and Konstantyn K. Vasylyev (Sumy) dealt with the role of German physicians in the history of the Odessa health resort. Lutz Haefner (Goettingen) illustrated the transfer of hygienic knowledge using the example of the Saratov medical society, and Bjoern Felder (Lueneburg) traced Evgeny Shepilevsky’s role in the Russian eugenics movement.A third cluster of presentations pursued the scientifi c foundation of modern medicine. Vladimir A. Abashnik (Kharkov) revealed the connections between Emil Heinrich Du Bois-Reymond and the Kharkov medical faculty. Galina Kichigina (Toronto) outlined the impor-tance of Karl Johann von Seidlitz concerning the implementation of physical examination in clinical practice. Erki Tammiksaar (Tartu) gave an introduction into Karl Ernst von Baer’s
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".