Shaping the Periodic Classification in Portugal through (text)books and charts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current paper, we present an investigation carried out to map the reception and use of Mendeleev’s periodic classification in the Portuguese education system, from 1850 to 1975 while being confronted with other classifications. We present protagonists and documents to demonstrate the attention that the topic received. The research involved the identification of textbooks, programs and graphic presentations used in higher and secondary education levels within this time frame. During the 1880s, Mendeleev’s classification appears in higher-level (text)books and programs. Secondary school textbooks however remained faithful to earlier classifications for some more decades, with the exception of the first occurrence found in a textbook for advanced high school in 1906. It does not seem that the periodic system was integrated in the official secondary programs before 1938. The oldest use of periodic charts seems to be from after 1891 at the University of Coimbra, the oldest surviving one dating back to the second quarter of the twentieth century. The periodic table wall charts seem to have entered the secondary classroom in Portugal by the 1960s. This survey of the use of the Periodic System in Portugal demonstrates how the different context of reception have shaped its introduction in the educational system of what we now regard as the indispensable tool for chemistry. While there was relatively little scientific debate on the periodic law and system, as far as it was found, Mendeleev’s classification was appropriated at different speed and stages through textbooks and charts, responding to different pedagogical needs and usage.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".