Computational data analysis shows that key developments towards the periodic system occurred in the 1840s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The periodic system arose from knowledge about substances, which constitute the chemical space. Despite the importance of this interplay, little is known about how the expanding space affected the system. Here we show, by analysing the space between 1800 and 1869, how the periodic system evolved until its formulation. We found that after an unstable period culminating around 1826, the system began to converge to a backbone structure, unveiled in the 1860s, which was clearly evident in the 1840s. Hence, contrary to the belief that the ``ripe moment'' to formulate the system was in the 1860s, it was in the 1840s. The evolution of the system is marked by the rise of organic chemistry in the first quarter of the nineteenth-century, which prompted the recognition of relationships among main group elements and obscured some of transition metals, which explains why the formulators of the periodic system struggled accommodating them. We also introduced an algorithm to adjust the chemical space according to different sets of atomic weights, which allowed for estimating the resulting periodic systems of chemists using one or the other nineteenth-century atomic weights. These weights produce orderings of the elements very similar to that of 1869, while providing different similarity relationships among the elements, therefore producing different periodic systems. By analysing these systems, from Dalton up to Mendeleev, we found that Gmelin's atomic weights of 1843 produce systems remarkably similar to that of 1869, a similarity that was reinforced by the atomic weights on the years to come.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".