Rutherford's scientific impact from a bibliometric perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of Rutherford's work on scientific developments over the past one hundred years through an analysis of his publications is presented. Rutherford was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1908 for explaining radioactivity as the spontaneous disintegration of toms, and in the process identified alpha, beta, and gamma rays. The launching of the Web of Science (WOS) has extended the retrospective coverage of WOS back to 1900. Rutherford's books received altogether 350 citations. A team at Harvard University has reported the creation of a corpus of over 5 million digitized books containing ~4% of all books ever published. Computational analysis of the data has enabled an investigation of cultural trends, quantitatively surveying the vast terrain of a new field known as culturomics. The authors focused on linguistic and cultural phenomena that were reflected in the English language between 1800 and 2000.
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 | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.145 | 0.252 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".