Maria Skłodowska-Curie i Ernest Rutherford – przyjaźń, współpraca i rywalizacja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For 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 Skodowska-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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.022 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".