The Heirs of Archimedes: Science and the Art of War through the Age of Enlightenment
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
and Tamera Dorland's edited volume grew from presentations made at two conferences, 'Science and Warfare in the Old Regime ' in 1998 and 'Colonels and Quartermasters' in 1999. The editors, by collecting these works, are trying to correct what they see as a lack of attention paid to the historical relationship between military technology and science; what attention it has received places it in the 20th, possibly the 19th century, whereas Steele and Dorland see this relationship emerging much earlier, with a significant flowering after the Renaissance. They introduce the collection by claiming, as did Voltaire, that this relationship extends as far back as the time of Archimedes, and then they shed light on that classical beginning. Through the succeeding essays, they hope to answer the question 'In short, when did Archimedes have real intellectual heirs who re-created for themselves his personal union of science and the art of war?' [3]. That brings up a key point of this book, particularly in regard to its title: despite the introduction, the focus of the book is firmly on the 'Heirs' and not on 'Archimedes'.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.138 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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