Maria Skłodowska-Curie i Ernest Rutherford – przyjaźń, współpraca i rywalizacja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maria Skłodowska-Curie and Ernest Rutherford -Friendship, Collaboration and RivalryFor the fi rst quarter of the 20 th century, the Curie Laboratory and the Ernest Rutherford Laboratory were the two main research centers for radioactivity.Both dealt with the same fi eld, but had different priorities from the beginning.The Paris laboratory focused on discovering and studying the properties of new radioactive elements, while Rutherford in his laboratories in Montreal, and later in Manchester and Cambridge, tried, above all, to explain the very nature of radioactivity.There was a clear competition between the two laboratories, which, however, did not preclude personal and scholarly cooperation between their heads of research, i.e.Maria Skłodowska-Curie and Ernest Rutherford.The article discusses the main topics of this collaboration, such as developing a radium template, assigning scientifi c terminology, organizing scientifi c conferences, and preparing students.In addition, a few passages were devoted to the private relations between both scientists, which had a direct impact on their collaboration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".