Swedenborg, Linnaeus and Brain Research and the Roles of Gustaf Retzius and Alfred Stroh in the Rediscovery of Swedenborg's Manuscripts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) at the end of his long life became famous as a visionary mystic and founder of a new religion. However, at younger age, he was recognized as a prominent mining engineer and natural philosopher, particularly interested in geology, mineralogy, cosmology, paleontology and last but not least physiology of the brain. In his Oeconomica regni animalis (1740) and in several posthumously published extensive manuscripts, he described and analyzed e.g. the structural and functional organization of the cerebral cortex, the hierarchical construction of the nervous system, the localization of the cerebrospinal fluid and the secretory functions of the pituitary gland. In these fields, he presented remarkable insights and far reaching conclusions which in some cases have been experimentally verified in modern times. In spite of family relations Swedenborg rarely met the 19 years younger Linnaeus. Linnaeus was not only the founder of the systemic botany but as physician a keen and to some extent original observer of neurological symptoms; one of the first who adequately described motor aphasia. To regard these two men, among the few Swedish authors of the 18th century whose names are still internationally well known, as early precursors of neurological research, seems justified. The young Canadian, Alfred H. Stroh (1878-1922), had a crucial importance for the research on the works of Swedenborg, and the rediscovery of his manuscripts. His work was supported and financed to a large extent by professor Gustaf Retzius, at that time the most prominent Swedish researcher in anatomy and histology. There are many reasons to be thankful for the important contributions made by Alfred Stroh and Gustaf Retzius to stimulate the interest for Emanuel Swedenborg in Sweden and internationally.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".