Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler (b. 1571–d. 1630) was a leading figure in what is commonly regarded as the scientific revolution. He is best known for his three laws of planetary motion (the planets move round the sun in an ellipse, and the sun is one of the foci; as they revolve, a radius vector drawn from the sun shows that the planets sweep out equal areas in equal times; the squares of the periodic times of any two planets is proportional to the cubes of their mean distances from the sun), which are still valid today, but at the time they were formulated they battled the prevailing belief in uniform circular planetary motion. At the same time he developed the idea of a celestial physics: that is, he maintained that the celestial bodies are physical, such as the earth, and moved by physical forces. His studies in optics were also pathbreaking: he showed that the eye was an optical instrument and worked according to natural laws, and he intuited the workings of the retina and the brain. He was also able to describe how lenses worked. He realized light propagated in spheres and formulated his intensity law—that the intensity of light is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. Like most astronomers of his day, Kepler was an astrologer, but he tried to reform the way astrology was done and maintained it had limited validity. Kepler had originally studied for the ministry and wrote a number of theological works. His scientific writing is suffused with his piety. Because of his writings on astrology and the religious tenor of his nontheological writings scholars debate whether Kepler was a number mystic and whether mysticism influenced his scientific discoveries. This is perhaps a factor in the lack of studies about Kepler in English relative to other major players in the scientific revolution until the last several decades.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.084 | 0.104 |
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".