Bibliographic record
Abstract
And there arose another king that knew not Joseph.''It must be admitted that the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection has fallen upon evil days.Prominent literary men like G.K. Chesterton have allowed themselves to talk of the ''dead dogma of Darwinism''.Although the connotation of ''Darwinism'' in the minds of such emotional and inexact writers is somewhat obscure, nevertheless they reflect an impression which they have imbibed from scientific acquaintances, viz.that our views on many things connected with life have changed since Darwin's time, and that most of Darwin's arguments will no longer hold.They cannot be blamed for conceiving this idea, for to a hearer of the discussion on evolution which took place last September at the meeting of the British Association at Hull 1 , it must have seemed clear that many zoologists and botanists were inclined to deny that natural selection was the efficient agent in the formation of new species.Prof. Stanley Gardiner from the standpoint of zoology, and Prof. Johannsen on the botanical side, both emphasised the ''inadequacy of natural selection'', whilst if we turn to Dr. Willis's Age and Area -a book which really gave rise to the discussion -we find the statement (p.215): ''It is clear that it is no longer safe to consider that advantage to the species has had anything to do with the actual evolution of that species''.Most serious of all, if we refer to Dr. Bateson's address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science on the occasion of their Toronto meeting in 1921 2 , we find the statement: ''That particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.We no longer feel as we used to do that the process of variation, now contemporaneously occurring, is the beginning Science Progress (2009), 92(3/4), 415-436 [1923 -24, XVIII, 76-96] www.scilet.com
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".