Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 1901 Guglielmo Marconi received at St. John's, Newfoundland, a wireless telegraph transmission of the letter “S” from his powerful station in Cornwall, England. Following Hertz's discovery of electromagnetic waves in 1887 physicists had concentrated their efforts on verifying that these waves had the properties of optical light, which precluded any thought of receiving them at distances beyond the horizon. Marconi had proceeded along a different path by alone having seen the communication possibilities between ships using waves much longer than Hertz had used. His company prospered, and his experience with waves of hundreds of meters demonstrated that they were being received at distances beyond the horizon. The St. John's transmission was doubted in many quarters but was soon verified, confounding physics theory. An explanation came independently from two electrical engineers: there must be a conducting layer at the top of the atmosphere. Oliver Heaviside inserted the idea in the article he wrote on telegraphy for the Encyclopaedia Britannica (10th edition, 1902). Arthur Edwin Kennelly, a Philadelphia engineer, had published the same observation more conventionally and somewhat earlier. For reasons other than transmission distance, wireless telegraphy was restricted for the first two decades of the century to those long wavelengths. Owing to the wide bandwidths required by the spark equipment then in use, the limited range of frequencies available in this region of the spectrum was quickly gobbled up by government and commercial traffic, and amateurs were given the useless but enormous short-wave band.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".