The genesis of modern science and the role of jesuits (1560-1773): Part one - change of paradigms.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part one of our two-part study covers Jesuit scientific activities up to the year 1750 approximately. We examine the wide network of colleges that they established in and out of Europe in which many competent mathematicians and astronomers taught and many more studied. They did not disregard other topics and they produced a remarkable series of textbooks that had an influence beyond their schools. Although most of those who studied in their colleges did not join the Jesuit order, the skills learned and the knowledge imparted served them well in their secular activities as scientists. Indeed, many became distinguished scientists such as Rene Descartes, Marin Mersenne and Evangelista Torricelli, among others. Even Galileo Galilee, who did not attend a Jesuit college, but interacted with the leading Jesuit mathematician of the sixteenth century, Christopher Clavius, was heavily influenced by Jesuit texts that were sent to him by Clavius. The Jesuit Carlos Sommervogel in his bibliography of Jesuit authors, lists some 18 000 names. This compilation is far from complete, for not all materials of all Jesuit provinces were available to him. Approximately every third Jesuit worked in science teaching, writing or doing research. The 6 000 Jesuits who have authored at least one scientific book, textbook, or scientific paper, represent the chief input that they made to science during the two centuries that we examine here. Among these authors, an elite group of about three hundred produced the best science. They were superb scientists who played a significant role with their contribution. They even worked in areas such as calendar reform in Rome and Pekin, China.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".