Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the role John Playfair (1748–1819) played in creating and popularizing the myth that mathematical development halted in Great Britain in the eighteenth century due to mathematicians' irrational attachment to a geometrical approach to the calculus. By the turn of the nineteenth century, Playfair had established his reputation as an energetic teacher, gifted expositor, and skilled natural philosopher. He served as joint professor of mathematics at the University of Edinburgh and as general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, editing the Society's Transactions, while his written accomplishments included Elements of geometry (1795) and Illustrations of the Huttonian theory of the earth (1802). He then contributed his talents to the opinionated journal, Edinburgh Review, where his assessments of the contemporary state of mathematics reached a wide audience of intellectuals, gentlemen, and merchants, albeit anonymously. The article expands upon a section of a talk delivered to the Fourth Joint Meeting of the BSHM and CSHPM in Montreal, 27–29 July 2007 (see also Ackerberg-Hastings Citation2007).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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".