Comparison of early tertiary mathematics in USA and Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we give a comparative study on the last 300 years of USA and Korean tertiary mathematics. The first mathematics classes in United States were offered before July, 1638, but the real founding of tertiary mathematics courses was in 1640 when Henry Dunster assumed the duties of the presidency at Harvard. President Dunster read arithmetics and geometry on Mondays and Tuesdays to the third year students during the first three quarters, and astronomy in the last quarter. So tertiary mathematics education in United States began at Harvard which is the oldest college in USA. After 230 years since then, Benjamin Peirce in 1870 made a major and first American contribution to mathematics and got an attention from European mathematicians. Major change on the role of Harvard mathematics from teaching to research made by G.D. Birkhoff when he joined as an assistant professor in 1912. Tertiary mathematics education in Korea started long before Chosun Dynasty. But it was given to only small number of government actuarial officers. Modern mathematics education of tertiary level in Korea was given at Sungkyunkwan, Ewha, Paichai, and Soongsil. But all college level education opportunity, particularly in mathematics, was taken over by colonial government after 1920. And some technical and normal schools offered some tertiary mathematics courses. There was no college mathematics department in Korea until 1945. After the World War II, the first college mathematics department was established, and Rimhak Ree in 1949 made a major and first Korean contribution to modern mathematics, and later found Ree group. He got an attention from western mathematicians for the first time as a Korean. It can be compared with Benjamin Peirce's contribution for USA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".