MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030577427 · doi:10.1098/rsnr.2020.0006

What he may seem to the world: Isaac Newton's autograph book epigrams

2020· article· en· W3030577427 on OpenAlexaff
George Gömöri, Stephen D. Snobelen

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Influence and Diplomacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of King's College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutographReputationClassicsSociologyArt historyLawHistoryLiteratureArtSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper identifies, describes and analyses Isaac Newton's known inscriptions in alba amicorum (autograph books). It begins with an introduction to the early modern autograph book and its social utility for travelling students. Each Newton inscription is contextualized with brief biographies of the individual album owners. The potential reasons for Newton's use of his chosen epigrams are considered, as are possible reflexive dynamics between him and the album owners that may have helped to inform these choices. An allied consideration is the degree to which Newton's epigrams relate to scholarly projects with which he was engaged when he penned them. A special feature is the identification of the owner of an album from which a Newton inscription was stolen more than half a century ago. This study offers a glimpse of Newton's intellectual reputation across several decades, both on the Continent and in his native England. More broadly, this paper makes contributions to our understanding of Newton's personal life and the strategic use of alba amicorum in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries within the Republic of Letters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNotes and Records the Royal Society Journal of the History of ScienceSame topicHistorical Influence and DiplomacyFrench-language works237,207