Vital Spirits: Redemption, Artisanship, and the New Philosophy in Early Modern Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his youth the German chemist Johann Rudolph Glauber (1603/4–70) passed through Basel, where he met a philosophically minded man who showed him his own dead child preserved in the water from a nearby spring. Although this child had died some time before, its corpse remained untouched by putrefaction. Glauber never saw the source in Switzerland from which this water came, but he happened upon a similar spring in Vienna-Neustadt. The water in this spring transmuted everything placed in it into stone, preventing all things from rotting. Moreover it cured Glauber of a long and difficult fever. Glauber stayed the whole winter observing this spring and found that it prevented the swamps from freezing, kept the grass green around its edge, and supported numerous turtles and other amphibious animals during the cold winter. Later, after many years of reading and experimenting, Glauber claimed to have discovered the makeup of the salt that gave this spring it powers. He called it sal mirabile , for the wonders it could work, and claimed that he produced it from common salt and sulfuric acid. He first announced his discovery in 1658, publishing a book about the nature of salts in general. In it he praised the manifold virtues of salt: it was the nutriment of all things, a symbol of eternity, the crucial ingredient in alchemical transmutation and in aurum potabile (potable gold), the cause of spontaneous generation, and the principle of all life. All salts, including common cooking salt, partook in the wondrous qualities of the elemental salt, but the sal mirabile was truly miraculous.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".