Nss Papers

[Michael]

TheFederalist, commonly referred to as the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time.

The Federalist Papers were written and published to urge New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In lobbying for adoption of the Constitution over the existing Articles of Confederation, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. For this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were each members of the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers are often used today to help interpret the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were published primarily in two New York state newspapers: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal. They were reprinted in other newspapers in New York state and in several cities in other states. A bound edition, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. An edition published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of its publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.

One printed edition of the text is The Federalist, edited by Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown, Conn., Wesleyan University Press, 1961). Cooke's introduction provides background information on the printing history of The Federalist; the information provided above comes in part from his work.

This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. Any irregularities with regard to grammar, syntax, spelling, or punctuation are as they exist in the original e-text archives.

This page provides access to papers and presentations prepared by BEA staff. Abstracts are presented in HTML format; complete papers are in PDF format with selected tables in XLS format. The views expressed in these papers are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Hiromi Paper, Inc. is devoted to the creation of a greater rapport between Japanese papermakers, printmakers, artists, conservators, designers and bookmakers, while developing new directions and a deeper understanding of Japanese papers or WASHI.

Newton was closely associated with Cambridge. He came to the University as a student in 1661, graduating in 1665, and from 1669 to 1701 he held the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics. Under the regulations for this Chair, Newton was required to deposit copies of his lectures in the University Library. These, and some correspondence relating to the University, were assigned the classmarks Dd.4.18, Dd.9.46, Dd.9.67, Dd.9.68, and Mm.6.50.

After his death, the manuscripts in Newton's possession passed to his niece Catherine and her husband John Conduitt. In 1740 the Conduitts' daughter, also Catherine, married John Wallop, who became Viscount Lymington when his father was created first Earl of Portsmouth. Their son became the second earl and the manuscripts were passed down succeeding generations of the family.

In 1872 the fifth earl passed all the Newton manuscripts he had to the University of Cambridge, where they were assessed and a detailed catalogue made. Based on this catalogue, the earl generously presented all the mathematical and scientific manuscripts to the University, and it is these that form the Library's 'Portsmouth collection' (MSS Add. 3958-Add. 4007).

The remainder of the Newton papers, many concerned with alchemy, theology and chronology, were returned to Lord Portsmouth. They were sold at auction at Sotheby's in London in 1936 and purchased by other libraries and individuals.

In 2000 Cambridge University Library acquired a very important collection of scientific manuscripts from the Earl of Macclesfield, which included a significant number of Isaac Newton's letters and other papers.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Declining rates of disruptive activity are unlikely to be caused by the diminishing quality of science and technology22,37. If they were, then the patterns seen in Fig. 2 should be less visible in high-quality work. However, when we restrict our sample to articles published in premier publication venues such as Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Science or to Nobel-winning discoveries38 (Fig. 5), the downward trend persists.

Furthermore, the trend is not driven by characteristics of the WoS and UPSTO data or our particular derivation of the CD index; we observe similar declines in disruptiveness when we compute CD5 on papers in JSTOR, the American Physical Society corpus, Microsoft Academic Graph and PubMed (Methods), the results of which are shown in Extended Data Fig. 6. We further show that the decline is not an artefact of the CD index by reporting similar patterns using alternative derivations13,15 (Methods and Extended Data Fig. 7).

We also considered how declining disruptiveness relates to the growth of knowledge (Extended Data Fig. 9). On the one hand, scientists and inventors face an increasing knowledge burden, which may inhibit discoveries and inventions that disrupt the status quo. On the other hand, as previously noted, philosophers of science suggest that existing knowledge fosters discovery and invention3,6,7. Using regression models, we evaluated the relationship between the stock of papers and patents (a proxy for knowledge) within fields and their CD5 (Supplementary Information section 3 and Supplementary Table 2). We find a positive effect of the growth of knowledge on disruptiveness for papers, consistent with previous work20; however, we find a negative effect for patents.

Our study is not without limitations. Notably, even though research to date supports the validity of the CD index12,34, it is a relatively new indicator of innovative activity and will benefit from future work on its behaviour and properties, especially across data sources and contexts. Studies that systematically examine the effect of different citation practices54,55, which vary across fields, would be particularly informative.

Overall, our results deepen understanding of the evolution of knowledge and may guide career planning and science policy. To promote disruptive science and technology, scholars may be encouraged to read widely and given time to keep up with the rapidly expanding knowledge frontier. Universities may forgo the focus on quantity, and more strongly reward research quality56, and perhaps more fully subsidize year-long sabbaticals. Federal agencies may invest in the riskier and longer-term individual awards that support careers and not simply specific projects57, giving scholars the gift of time needed to step outside the fray, inoculate themselves from the publish or perish culture, and produce truly consequential work. Understanding the decline in disruptive science and technology more fully permits a much-needed rethinking of strategies for organizing the production of science and technology in the future.

Our results show a steady decline in the disruptiveness of science and technology over time. Moreover, the patterns we observe are generally similar across broad fields of study, which suggests that the factors driving the decline are not unique to specific domains of science and technology. The decline could be driven by other factors, such as the conditions of science and technology at a point in time or the particular individuals who produce science and technology. For example, exogenous factors such as economic conditions may encourage research or invention practices that are less disruptive. Similarly, scientists and inventors of different generations may have different approaches, which may result in greater or lesser tendencies for producing disruptive work. We therefore sought to understand the relative contribution of field, year and author (or inventor) factors to the decline of disruptive science and technology.

Results of this analysis are shown in Extended Data Fig. 5, for both papers (top bar) and patents (bottom bar). Total bar size corresponds to the value of the adjusted R2 for the fully specified model (that is, with all three groups of fixed effects). Consistent with our observations from plots of the CD index over time, we observe that for both papers and patents, field-specific factors make the lowest relative contribution to the adjusted R2 (0.02 and 0.01 for papers and patents, respectively). Author fixed effects, by contrast, appear to contribute much more to the predictive power of the model, for both papers (0.20) and patents (0.17). Researchers and inventors who entered the field in more recent years may face a higher burden of knowledge and thus resort to building on narrower slices of existing work (for example, because of more specialized doctoral training), which would generally lead to less disruptive science and technology being produced in later years, consistent with our findings. The pattern is more complex for year fixed effects; although year-specific factors that do not vary by field or author hold more explanatory power than field for both papers (0.02) and patents (0.16), they appear to be substantially more important for the latter than the former. Taken together, these findings suggest that relatively stable factors that vary across individual scientists and inventors may be particularly important for understanding changes in disruptiveness over time. The results also confirm that domain-specific factors across fields of science and technology play a very small role in explaining the decline in disruptiveness of papers and patents.

3a8082e126