Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friends and colleagues, it is an honor to be asked to speak to you this evening, and I thank you for the occasion. It is, however, entirely possible that you will regret granting me this forum, for I intend to undermine one of our most hallowed explanatory frameworks, that of the Scientific Revolution – almost always written with capital letters, of course. I am well aware that something happened in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that human beings have since come to regard as revolutionary – revolutionary, that is, in the modern sense of that word: in I. B. Cohen's definition of political revolution, “a change that is sudden, radical, and complete” Or, in the words of Arthur Marwick, who has scant patience with overuse of the term, “a significant change in political structure carried through within a fairly short space of time.” Marwick's examples are the French revolutions of 1789, 1830, and 1848; the Russian one of 1917; the Mexican one of 1906. We must keep in mind that the modern meaning of revolution did develop in the political sphere. When we use it for scientific thought, we are in fact using a metaphor. But as Cohen demonstrated so well in 1985, the word “revolution” hardly began to acquire its modern meaning until the eighteenth century; before then the term had carried the implication of a cyclical turning, a turning around, or even a turning back, a re turn to an original position, just as Copernicus used it in the title of his book, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.012 |
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".