The Science and Myth of Galileo between the Seventeenth and Nineteenth Centuries in Europe by Massimo Bucciantini
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume contains the proceedings of an international conference held in Florence at the Museo Galileo, 29–31 January 2020. There are 31 essays, including the editor’s preface. Although the subtitle indicates that the conference was “international”, the vast majority of essays are by Italian scholars. This puzzling fact is not just an item of information concerning the statistics of the volume but is important in that it may help the reader contextualize the overarching ideological and political project that gave birth to the conference. It was, in fact, a collaborative undertaking shared by five Italian universities and the Museo Galileo, which was sponsored by the Italian government (defined as a Progetto di ricerca di interesse nazionale [viii]). In the remainder of the review, I will selectively discuss some of questions raised by the essays and highlight what I see as the major strengths and weaknesses of this collective volume. I am a historian and philosopher of science. Hence, my review will be concerned mostly with historical and philosophical aspects of the science and myth of Galileo.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".