Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the twentieth century began, a substantial amount was already known about the mechanics of breathing, and the respiratory muscles. The chest wall had been modeled as a bellows with a bladder inside representing the lung. It was known that the respiratory system was elastic and stored energy on inflation that did the work of expiration. Measurements of transpulmonary pressure had been made and there had been attempts to correlate these with lung volume (1). However, a century ago we had no framework in which to view measurements. Without a model of how the system behaves, measurements of respiratory mechanics are uninterpretable. In addition, we lacked technology to make measurements. In the past 100 years this has changed: modeling has provided great insights into the system’s behavior and technological advances have permitted measurements that previously were impossible. Sometimes, however, advances are made without new models and new technology because scientists view problems from new perspectives. Such appears to be the case with surface tension, which I discuss separately. This review is not comprehensive, but focuses on the role of models and technology in the development of new knowledge in the field and on discoveries related to surface tension. Only a limited number of topics are discussed. I apologize to those whose work should be included, but that I fail to discuss. MODELING Lung Models
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".