Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most satisfying tribute a scholar can receive is serious consideration of his or her work by other scholars. When Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs died suddenly and prematurely on March 29, 1994, 1 decided to invite a number of her colleagues, students, and friends to contribute papers to a volume in memory of her scholarly interests and the impact of her work. Dobbs's groundbreaking studies of the meaning of Newton's alchemy irrevocably altered our understanding of the Scientific Revolution and early modern natural philosophy. The scholarship of her associates reflects this impact – in spirit as well as detail. This volume stands as a tribute to her contributions. Dobbs herself articulated some of the far-reaching ramifications of her work on Newton in her History of Science Society Distinguished Lecture, “Newton as Final Cause and First Mover,” in which she challenged the received understanding of the Scientific Revolution. This essay, which was originally published in Isis , opens the volume and sets the themes for the chapters that follow. Richard S. Westfall contributed an essay that went head-to-head with Dobbs's and which provides an eloquent defense of the utility – indeed necessity – of thinking in traditional terms about the Scientific Revolution. The debate between these two giants about the central concept in our field provides the broader context for the chapters in the volume. Subsequent events altered the direction of the volume after it was well underway. Westfall's sudden death on August 21, 1996, reinforced my decision to construct the volume in terms of their debate and, at the same time, to honor Westfall's memory along with Dobbs's.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.340 | 0.203 |
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".