Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years both Boyle and Newton have received considerable scholarly attention, and today we know much more about these two paragons of the “Scientific Revolution” than did previous generations of scholars. The “Newtonian Industry,” as Richard S. Westfall has termed it, has undergone a radical transformation in at least two areas. First, the image of Newton as a significant influence in the establishment of Enlightenment deism has been considerably modified by scholars such as James E. Force, Edward B. Davis, and Betty Jo Dobbs, and it is now widely recognized that even though the Newtonian system could be (and indeed was) associated with a deistic world view, this was most definitely not what Newton himself intended. Second, Newton's alchemical pursuits, long kept secret, and even longer misunderstood, have finally been brought to light by J. E. McGuire and P. M. Rattansi, and have been interpreted by Betty Jo Dobbs in such a way that their relationship to Newton's thought as a whole finally makes sense. Where Boyle studies are concerned, there has been a virtual explosion of activity, due primarily to the efforts of Michael Hunter to make Boyle's unpublished manuscripts and correspondence available to scholars unable to travel to the Royal Society of London, as well as his efforts to establish and maintain a network of communication among the present generation of Boyle scholars. This activity has resulted in a better understanding of all aspects of Boyle studies, including his own alchemical pursuits, his view of the relationships between theology, natural philosophy, and epistemology, and the details of his experimental program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".