Intelligencers, Cliques, and Stars in the Spread of 17th -Century Cartesianism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the dissemination of Cartesianism in the 17th century by studying the networks of authors in the field of natural philosophy. Key figures who spread knowledge and innovated the field are identified and contextualized. Furthermore, the network analysis shows how different ways of thinking coexisted within the social networks of early modern natural philosophers. To achieve this methodologically, originally bipartite networks were projected into author-to-author networks that were divided into time slices. Measurements of centrality and assortativity were used to determine prominence and diversity, which were complemented and refined with close reading. The findings reveal not only cliques of geographically connected authors, but also an overall highly connected field. Additionally, assortativity indicates a moderate tendency toward homophily in the authors’ connections to others within the same philosophical tradition. The study furthermore identifies that central authors were predominantly eclectic or Cartesian, suggesting that Cartesianism was driven by such individuals in structurally well-connected positions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it