Images of Marie Curie: How Reputational Entrepreneurs Shape Iconic Identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marie Curie holds iconic status both within the scientific community and in the wider cultural imagination and collective memory. The first woman to be awarded a Nobel Prize and the only woman to achieve such an honor twice, Curie is widely celebrated as a female pioneer in the sciences and is held up as a model for all, but particularly women, to emulate. She is revered not only as a ground-breaking scientist, but also as a devoted wife and mother who fostered intellectual passion in her own children, one of whom became the second woman to be honored with the Nobel Prize in Science. Echoing Eva Hemmungs Wirten, we argue that the evolution of Curie’s status over time offers an opportunity to use meta-biography to understand the layered nature of her reputation. We draw on Gary Alan Fine’s theory of reputational entrepreneurship to understand her legacy as a product of collective historical memory. Curie’s legacy was not pre-determined by the fact that she was a successful scientist; in fact, she was shunned by the public in France in 1911 after it was revealed that she, a widow, had engaged in an affair with a fellow married scientist. A meta-biographical analysis reveals considerable effort was put into reputation building by her Curie herself, her commercial sponsor, and family members. To ignore the earlier iterations of her reputation is to underestimate the challenges she faced as a woman in male-dominated science and in a society that judged her by a sexual double standard. Meta-biography, in conjunction with theories of intellectual reputation building and collective memory, allows us to unearth the complicated layers of Curie’s story. It also tells us a great deal about the [sexist] society in which Curie and her supporters had to forge her reputation.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".