Brief Historical Review about Magnetism: From the Ancient Greeks up the Beginning of the XXth Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetism is omnipresent in multiple natural and constructed phenomena we interact with daily. However, few students knew about the different explanations advanced relative to this mysterious magnetic force imperceptible by our senses before the advent of the discovery of the atomic and molecular aspects of matter. Unfortunately, the concepts associated with the study of magnetism presented in many textbooks do not consider the conceptual difficulties encountered by scientists and the false theories developed and abandoned following new experiments and theories. Towards the end of the 18th century, with the developments of classical physics, among others in mechanics, electrostatic, electricity, and measuring instruments, scientists pierced the secret of the magnet stone and the compass used in navigation for several centuries BC. On the other hand, the progress made in studying matter at the atomic scale at the beginning of the 20th century made it possible to explore the phenomenon of magnetism in greater depth and give it a quantum interpretation. It is impossible to present all the conceptual complexity concerning the development of magnetism in a few pages. Thus, we will limit to synthesizing the most discoveries related to magnetism from the ancient time, five centuries before Jesus Christ, to the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, we will mainly focus on the erroneous theories developed throughout history by renowned scientists and the conceptual difficulties related to the study of magnetism.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".