Scrape wikipedia-science: 436 new, 4 updated, 459 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristics_of_common_wasps_and_bees-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+title: "Characteristics of common wasps and bees"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristics_of_common_wasps_and_bees"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:42.877892+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+While observers can easily confuse common wasps and bees at a distance or without close observation, there are many different characteristics of large bees and wasps that can be used to identify them.
+
+
+== Characteristics ==
+
+
+== See also ==
+
+Schmidt sting pain index
+
+
+== Notes ==
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+N. R. Levick; J. O. Schmidt; J. Harrison; G. S. Smith; K. D. Winkel (2000). "Review of bee and wasp sting injuries in Australia and the U.S.A. § Bees versus wasps: Appearance, Behaviour, and Venom chemistry". In Andrew D. Austin; Mark Dowton (eds.). Hymenoptera: evolution, biodiversity and biological control. Csiro Publishing. pp. 439–440. ISBN 978-0-643-06610-6.
+P. Gopalakrishnakone (1990). "Differences between wasps and bees". A Colour guide to dangerous animals. NUS Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-9971-69-150-9.
+Philip B. Mortenson (2008). "Bee · Wasp · Hornet · Ant". How to tell a turtle from a tortoise: a close look at nature's most confusing terms. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 978-0-7607-9002-1.
+Kevin T. Fitzgerald; Rebecca Vera (2006). "Insects — Hymenoptera". In Michael Edward Peterson; Patricia A. Talcott (eds.). Small animal toxicology (2nd ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 978-0-7216-0639-2.
+
+
+== External links ==
+What's Buzzin' in My Garden?
+Differences between wasps and bees poster

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases"
+chunk: 1/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:45.135768+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+This article compares the radioactivity release and decay from the Chernobyl disaster with various other events which involved a release of uncontrolled radioactivity.
+
+== Chernobyl compared to background radiation ==
+
+Natural sources of radiation are prevalent in the environment, and come from cosmic rays, food sources (bananas have a particularly high source due to potassium-40 but all foods contain carbon and thereby carbon-14), radon gas, granite and other dense rocks, and others. The banana equivalent dose is sometimes used in science communication to visualize different levels of ionizing radiation. The collective radiation background dose for natural sources in Europe is about 500,000 man-Sieverts per year. The total dose from Chernobyl is estimated at 80,000 man-sieverts, or roughly 1/6 as much. However, some individuals, particularly in areas adjacent to the reactor, received massively higher doses.
+Chernobyl's radiation was detectable across Western Europe. Average doses received ranged from 0.02 mrem (Portugal) to 38 mrem (portions of Germany).
+
+== Chernobyl compared with an atomic bomb ==
+Far fewer people died as an immediate result of the Chernobyl event than the immediate deaths from radiation at Hiroshima. Chernobyl is eventually predicted to result in up to 4,000 total deaths from cancer, sometime in the future, according to the WHO and create around 41,000 excess cancer according to the International Journal of Cancer, with, depending on treatment, not all cancers resulting in death. Due to the differences in half-life, the different radioactive fission products undergo exponential decay at different rates. Hence the isotopic signature of an event where more than one radioisotope is involved will change with time.
+"Compared with other nuclear events: The Chernobyl explosion put 400 times more radioactive material into the Earth's atmosphere than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima; atomic weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s all together are estimated to have put some 100 to 1,000 times more radioactive material into the atmosphere than the Chernobyl accident."
+The radioactivity released at Chernobyl tended to be more long-lived than that released by a bomb detonation hence it is not possible to draw a simple comparison between the two events. Also, a dose of radiation spread over many years (as is the case with Chernobyl) is much less harmful than the same dose received over a short period.
+The relative size of the Chernobyl release when compared with the release due to a hypothetical ground burst of a bomb similar to the Fat Man device dropped on Nagasaki.
+
+A comparison of the gamma dose rates due to the Chernobyl accident and the hypothetical nuclear weapon.
+
+The graph of dose rate as a function of time for the bomb fallout was created using a method similar to that of T. Imanaka, S. Fukutani, M. Yamamoto, A. Sakaguchi and M. Hoshi, J. Radiation Research, 2006, 47, Suppl A121-A127. The graph exhibits the same shape as that obtained in the paper. The bomb fallout graph is for a ground burst of an implosion-based plutonium bomb which has a depleted uranium tamper. The fission was assumed to have been caused by 1 MeV neutrons and 20% occurred in the 238U tamper of the bomb. It was assumed, for the sake of simplicity, that no plume separation of the isotopes occurred between the detonation and the deposit of radioactivity. The following gamma-emitting isotopes are modeled 131I, 133I, 132Te, 133I, 135I, 140Ba, 95Zr, 97Zr, 99Mo, 99mTc, 103Ru, 105Ru, 106Ru, 142La, 143Ce, 137Cs, 91Y, 91Sr, 92Sr, 128Sb, and 129Sb. The graph ignores the effects of beta emission and shielding. The data for the isotopes was obtained from the Korean table of the isotopes. The graphs for the Chernobyl accident were computed by an analogous method. Note that in the event of a low altitude or ground burst nuclear detonation that fractionation of the volatile and non volatile radionuclides occurs. Also during the Chernobyl accident, the ratio between the different elements released by the accident changed as a function of time.
+A ground burst of a nuclear weapon creates considerably more local deposited fallout than the air bursts used at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. This is due in part to neutron activation of ground soil and greater amounts of soil being sucked into the nuclear fireball in a ground burst than in a high air burst. In the above, neutron activation is neglected, and only the fission product fraction of the total activity resulting from the ground burst is shown.
+
+== Chernobyl compared with Tomsk-7 ==
+The release of radioactivity which occurred at Tomsk-7 (an industrial nuclear complex located in Seversk rather than the city of Tomsk) in 1993, is another comparison with the Chernobyl release. During reprocessing activities, some of the feed for the second cycle (medium active part) of the PUREX process escaped in an accident involving red oil. According to the IAEA it was estimated that the following isotopes were released from the reaction vessel:

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases"
+chunk: 2/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:45.135768+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+106Ru 7.9 TBq
+103Ru 340 GBq
+95Nb 11.2 TBq
+95Zr 5.1 TBq
+137Cs 505 GBq (estimated from the IAEA data)
+141Ce 370 GBq
+144Ce 240 GBq
+125Sb 100 GBq
+239Pu 5.2 GBq
+The very short-lived isotopes such as 140Ba and 131I were absent from this mixture, and the long-lived 137Cs was at a small concentration. This is because it is not able to enter the tributyl phosphate/hydrocarbon organic phase used in the first liquid-liquid extraction cycle of the PUREX process. The second cycle is normally to clean up the uranium and plutonium product. In the PUREX process, some zirconium, technetium, and other elements are extracted by the tributyl phosphate. Due to the radiation induced degradation of tributyl phosphate, the first cycle organic phase is always contaminated with ruthenium (later extracted by dibutyl hydrogen phosphate). Because the very short-lived radioisotopes and the relatively long-lived caesium isotopes are either absent or in low concentrations, the shape of the dose rate vs. time graph is different from Chernobyl, both for short times and long times after the accident.
+The size of the radioactive release at Tomsk-7 was much smaller, and while it caused moderate environmental contamination, it did not cause any early deaths.
+
+== Chernobyl compared to Fukushima Daiichi ==
+
+== Chernobyl compared with the Goiânia accident ==
+While both events released 137Cs, the isotopic signature for the Goiânia accident was much simpler. It was a single isotope which has a half-life of about 30 years. To show how the activity vs. time graph for a single isotope differs from the dose rate due to Chernobyl (in the open air), the adjacent chart is shown with calculated data for a hypothetical release of 106Ru.
+
+== Chernobyl compared with the Three Mile Island accident ==
+
+Three Mile Island-2 was an accident of a completely different type from Chernobyl. However, both accidents have vague similarities.
+Chernobyl was a design flaw-caused power excursion causing a steam explosion resulting in a graphite fire, uncontained, which lofted radioactive smoke high into the atmosphere; TMI was a slow, undetected leak – caused by the technical malfunction of a pilot-operated relief valve – which lowered the water level around the nuclear fuel, resulting in over a third of it shattering when refilled rapidly with coolant.
+Similar to Chernobyl, operator error played a role but did not directly cause the accident. Both accidents had grueling and costly cleanup efforts. Chernobyl and TMI's unaffected reactors were restarted and continued operation until 2000 and 2019, respectively.
+Unlike Chernobyl, TMI-2's reactor vessel did not fail and contained almost all of the radioactive material. Containment at TMI was not breached. On the day of the accident, a small "hydrogen burn" occurred inside the reactor building, but it was not enough to affect normal operation of the reactor.
+Following the accident, an estimated 44,000 Ci (1,600,000 GBq) (curies) of radioactive gases – particularly Krypton-85 – from the leak were vented into the atmosphere through specially designed filters under operator control. A government report concluded that the accident caused no increase in cancer rates for local residents.
+
+== Chernobyl compared with criticality accidents ==
+During the time between the start of the Manhattan Project and the present day, a series of accidents have occurred in which nuclear criticality has played a central role. The criticality accidents may be divided into two classes. For more details see nuclear and radiation accidents. A review of the topic was published in 2000, "A Review of Criticality Accidents" by Los Alamos National Laboratory (Report LA-13638), May 2000. Coverage includes United States, Russia, United Kingdom, and Japan. Also available at this page, which also tries to track down documents referenced in the report.
+
+Press release on a report on criticality accidents from Los Alamos National Laboratory
+List of radiation accidents
+U.S. report from 1971 on criticality accidents to date
+
+=== Process accidents ===
+In the first class (process accidents) during the processing of fissile material, accidents have occurred when a critical mass has been created by accident. For instance at Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States, on July 24, 1964, one death occurred. At Tokaimura, Japan, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, on September 30, 1999, two deaths and one non fatal overexposure occurred as result of accidents where too much fissile matter was placed in a vessel. Radioactivity was released as a result of the Tokaimura accident. The building in which the accident occurred was not designed as a containment building, yet it was able to retard the spread of radioactivity. Because the temperature rise in the nuclear reaction vessel was small, the majority of the fission products remained in the vessel.
+These accidents tend to lead to very high doses due to direct irradiation of the workers within the site, but due to the inverse square law the dose suffered by members of the general public tends to be very small. Also very little environmental contamination normally occurs as a result of these accidents.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases"
+chunk: 3/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:45.135768+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Reactor accidents ===
+In this type of accident a reactor or other critical assembly releases far more fission power than was expected, or it becomes critical at the wrong moment in time. The series of examples of such events include one in an experimental facility in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on September 23, 1983 (one death), and during the Manhattan Project several people were irradiated (two, Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin, were irradiated fatally) during "tickling the dragon's tail" experiments. These accidents tend to lead to very high doses due to direct irradiation of the workers within the site, but due to the inverse square law the dose suffered by members of the general public tends to be very small. Also, very little environmental contamination normally occurs as a result of these accidents. For instance, at Sarov the radioactivity remained confined to within the actinide metal objects which were part of the experimental system, according to the IAEA report (2001). Even the SL-1 accident (RIA, power surge in an experimental nuclear reactor in Idaho, 1961) failed to release much radioactivity outside the building in which it occurred.
+
+== See also ==
+Church Rock uranium mill spill
+Comparison of Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear accidents
+Effects of the Chernobyl disaster
+Fukushima nuclear accident
+Mayak explosion
+International Nuclear Event Scale
+Nuclear power debate
+List of Chernobyl-related articles
+Chernobyl
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of butterflies and moths"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:41.666664+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A common classification of the Lepidoptera involves their differentiation into butterflies and moths.  Butterflies are a natural monophyletic group, historically treated as the suborder Rhopalocera, which includes Papilionoidea (true butterflies), Hesperiidae (skippers), and Hedylidae (butterfly moths). In this taxonomic scheme, moths formed the suborder Heterocera. Other taxonomic schemes have been proposed, the most common putting the butterflies into the suborder Ditrysia and then the "superfamily" Papilionoidea and ignoring a classification for moths.
+
+== Taxonomy ==
+While the butterflies form a monophyletic group, the moths, which comprise the rest of the Lepidoptera, do not. Many attempts have been made to group the superfamilies of the Lepidoptera into natural groups, most of which fail because one of the two groups is not monophyletic: Microlepidoptera and Macrolepidoptera, Heterocera and Rhopalocera, Jugatae and Frenatae, Monotrysia and Ditrysia.
+Although the rules for distinguishing these groups are not absolute, one very good guiding principle is that butterflies have thin antennae and (with one exception) have small balls or clubs at the end of their antennae.  Moth antennae can be quite varied in appearance, but in particular lack the club end.  The divisions are named by this principle: "club-antennae" (Rhopalocera) or "varied-antennae" (Heterocera).
+The following families of Lepidoptera are usually considered butterflies:
+
+Swallowtails and birdwings, Papilionidae
+Whites or yellow-whites, Pieridae
+Blues and coppers or gossamer-winged butterflies, Lycaenidae
+Metalmark butterflies, Riodinidae
+Brush-footed butterflies, Nymphalidae which contain the following 13 subfamilies:
+the snout butterflies or Libytheinae (formerly the family Libytheidae)
+the danaids or Danainae (formerly the family Danaidae)
+the Tellervinae
+the glasswings or Ithomiinae
+the Calinaginae
+the morphos and owls or Morphinae (including the owls as tribe Brassolini)
+the browns or Satyrinae (formerly the family Satyridae)
+the Charaxinae (Preponas and leaf butterflies)
+the Biblidinae
+the Apaturinae
+the nymphs or Nymphalinae
+the Limenitidinae (especially the Adelphas) (formerly the family Limenitididae)
+the tropical longwings or Heliconiinae
+The family Hesperiidae, or the skippers, often considered as butterflies, have significant morphological differences from butterflies and moths.
+The other families of the Lepidoptera are considered moths.
+
+== Morphological differences ==
+
+=== Shape and structure of antennae ===
+The most obvious difference is in the feelers, or antennae. Most butterflies have thin slender filamentous antennae which are club shaped at the end. Moths, on the other hand, often have comb-like or feathery antennae, or filamentous and unclubbed. This distinction is the basis for the earliest taxonomic divisions in the Lepidoptera: the Rhopalocera ("clubbed horn", the butterflies) and the Heterocera ("varied horn", the moths).
+There are, however, exceptions to this rule and a few moths (the families Castniidae, Uraniidae, Apoprogonidae, Sematuridae, and some members of Sphingidae) have clubbed antennae. Some butterflies, like Pseudopontia paradoxa from the forests of central Africa, lack the club ends. The hesperiids often have an angle to the tip of the antenna, with the clubs hooked backwards like a crochet hook.
+
+=== Wing-coupling mechanisms ===
+Many moths have a frenulum which is a filament arising from the hindwing and coupling (matching up) with barbs on the forewing. The frenulum can be observed only when a specimen is in hand. There is only one known species of butterfly with a frenulum, which is the male regent skipper Euschemon rafflesia. Some moths have a lobe on the forewing called a jugum that helps in coupling with the hindwing.  Butterflies lack these structures.
+
+=== Pupae ===
+Most moth caterpillars spin a cocoon made of silk within which they metamorphose into the pupal stage. Most butterfly caterpillars, on the other hand, form an exposed pupa made from a hardened protein, also termed a chrysalis.
+
+There are many exceptions to this rule, however.  For example, the hawk moths form an exposed pupa which is underground. Spongy moths sometimes form butterfly-style pupae, hanging on twigs or tree bark, although usually they create flimsy cocoons out of silk webbing and leaf bits, leaving the pupa exposed. The plume winged moths of the family Pterophoridae also pupates without a cocoon and the pupa resembles the chrysalis of the pierid butterfly. A few skipper butterfly larvae also make crude cocoons in which they pupate, exposing the pupa a bit. The Parnassius butterfly larvae make a flimsy cocoon for pupation and they pupate near the ground surface between debris.
+
+=== Colouration of the wings ===
+Most butterflies have bright colours on their wings. Nocturnal moths on the other hand are usually plain brown, grey, white or black and often with obscuring patterns of zigzags or swirls which help camouflage them from predators as they rest during the day. However, many day-flying moths are brightly coloured, particularly if they are toxic. These diurnal species evolved to locate their mates visually and not primarily by pheromone as their drab nocturnal cousins. Several species of Saturniidae moths, such as the giant silk moths, are nocturnal but often have bright colours and striking patterns on their wings. A few butterflies are also plain-coloured, like the cabbage white butterfly or the baron butterfly.
+
+=== Structure of the body ===
+Moths tend to have stout and hairy or furry-looking bodies, while butterflies have slender and smoother abdomens. Moths have larger scales on their wings which makes them look more dense and fluffy. Butterflies on the other hand possess fine scales.  This difference is possibly due to the need for moths to conserve heat during the cooler nights, or to confound echolocation by bats, whereas butterflies are able to absorb sunlight.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of butterflies and moths"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:41.666664+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Eye types ===
+Despite appearances, butterflies and moths have different types of compound eyes. Though not universal, moths very commonly have superposition eyes, while butterflies equally commonly favour apposition eyes. This is due to the superposition eye's adaptations for low light environments suiting the nocturnal moths, and the apposition eye's superior resolution and potential for colour vision benefiting the more diurnal butterflies.
+There are several exceptions to this rule, such as with the diurnal Zygaenidae and Sytomidae families of moths, both of which have apposition eyes, or the Hedyloidea family of butterflies, which are nocturnal and feature superposition eyes. In most cases where one species is found to be using the opposite type of eye than expected, it is because they are active during the opposite time of day than is normal for other butterflies or moths.
+
+== Behavioural differences ==
+
+=== Time of activity ===
+Most moths are nocturnal or crepuscular while most butterflies are diurnal. There are however exceptions, including the spectacular Uraniidae or sunset moths. A few species, such as the male European/North American spongy moth, fly during both day and night in search of the females, which are flightless.
+
+=== Resting posture ===
+Moths usually rest with their wings spread out to their sides. Butterflies frequently fold their wings above their backs when they are perched although they will occasionally "bask" with their wings spread for short periods (several types of Swallowtail butterflies tend to frequently rest with their wings spread when in sunlight). However, some butterflies, like the skippers, may hold their wings either flat, or folded, or even in-between (the so-called "jet plane" position) when perched.
+
+Most moths also occasionally fold their wings above their backs when there is no room to fully spread their wings.
+A sometimes confusing family can be the Geometridae (such as the winter moth) because the adults often rest with their wings folded vertically.  These moths have thin bodies and large wings like many butterflies but may be distinguished easily by structural differences in their antennae (e.g. bipectinate).
+
+=== Examples of exceptions to the general moth/butterfly distinctions ===
+
+== Online ==
+Wilkes, Benjamin (1749) The English moths and butterflies
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:46.321170+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+To date, the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011) nuclear power plants are the only INES level 7 nuclear accidents.
+
+
+== Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents ==
+The following table compares the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents.
+
+
+== Radioactive contamination discharge ==
+
+
+== See also ==
+Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases
+Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster
+List of accidents at the Mayak facility
+
+
+== Notes ==
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+How Much Fuel Is at Risk at Fukushima?
+Chernobyl Accident. World Nuclear Association. Archived 1 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine
+Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Unwrapped Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine
+Fukushima Nuclear Accident. IAEA Update Log
+BBC News: Fukushima and Chernobyl compared

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_Science_and_Technology-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+---
+title: "Fields of Science and Technology"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_Science_and_Technology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:35.439979+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Fields of Science and Technology (FOS) is a compulsory classification for statistics of branches of scholarly and technical fields, published by the OECD in 2002. It was created out of the need to interchange data of research facilities, research results etc. It was revised in 2007 under the name Revised Fields of Science and Technology. 
+
+
+== List ==
+Natural sciences
+Mathematics
+Computer and information sciences
+Physical sciences
+Chemical sciences
+Earth and related environmental sciences
+Biological sciences
+Other natural sciences
+Engineering and technology
+Civil engineering
+Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering
+Mechanical engineering
+Chemical engineering
+Materials engineering
+Medical engineering
+Environmental engineering
+Environmental biotechnology
+Industrial biotechnology
+Nano technology
+Other engineering and technologies
+Medical and health sciences
+Basic medicine
+Clinical medicine
+Health sciences
+Health biotechnology
+Other medical sciences
+Agricultural sciences
+Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
+Animal and dairy science
+Veterinary science
+Agricultural biotechnology
+Other agricultural sciences
+Social science
+Psychology
+Economics and business
+Educational sciences
+Sociology
+Law
+Political science
+Social and economic geography
+Media and communications
+Other social sciences
+Humanities
+History and archaeology
+Languages and literature
+Philosophy, ethics and religion
+Arts (arts, history of arts, performing arts, music)
+Other humanities
+
+
+== See also ==
+International Standard Classification of Education
+International Standard Classification of Occupations
+Wissenschaft – epistemological concept in which serious scholarly works of history, literature, art, and religion are similar to natural sciences
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_Common_Data_Dictionary-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+title: "IEC Common Data Dictionary"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_Common_Data_Dictionary"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:36.661969+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+IEC Common Data Dictionary (abbreviated: IEC CDD) is a metadata registry providing product classification and formalized product descriptions that can be used in the context of smart manufacturing and Industrie 4.0.
+
+
+== Data Model ==
+IEC CDD is based on the data model  defined in IEC 61360-2/ISO 13584–42 with an enhancement of its modelling capability adopted from IEC 62656-1. The description of the data model for dictionary developers in particular for those in electrotechnical domains is given in IEC 61360-1. Currently the scope of the registry is extended to cover all ISO and IEC domains, thus it is no longer "IEC CDD", nevertheless it is hosted by IEC-CO and is maintained by IEC SC 3D with a joint working group formed between IEC SC 3D and ISO TC 184/SC4.  The data model of the CDD references ISO/IEC 11179 for the identification of the registered elements . It is used to host product classifications. - This means the IEC CDD is a database providing classifications and metadata definitions for describing products. The IEC CDD is an International Standard in the form of an online database, not in the form of (e-)paper, and is given the standard number IEC 61360-4 DB. Thus the metadata registered into the database has the status of International Standard. The procedure to add a new definition or a set of definitions is based on the IEC database procedure, described in Annex SL of the IEC supplementary of the ISO/IEC directive Part 1. This process for updating the content is called a "Change Request" and when a Change Request is issued and adopted, the proposed item will become part of the International Standard, IEC 61360-4 DB, within approximately 6 months.
+
+
+== Use ==
+IEC CDD originally was intended to support electronic exchange of digital information (e.g. for e-commerce ).
+The exchanged information is based on concepts, which are standardized as a common basis.
+New information concepts related to smart manufacturing and Industrie 4.0 are based on use of IEC CDD and similar dictionaries. The intention for these use cases is to provide the meaning of data values by referencing the data definitions in the dictionaries. Such annotated data values then can be exchanged within one production system between machines of different manufacturers or between different companies.
+
+
+== Scope ==
+The data specification for IEC CDD is provided by IEC 61360. This means IEC CDD stores concepts which are based on IEC 61360, such as
+
+Uniquely identified classes and properties, and their relations;
+Uniquely identified values and value lists;
+terminology and definitions based on accepted international standards;
+technical representation of concepts including units and data types and their identification.
+The representation of a product and its features is based on a hierarchy of classes. The characteristics of the product are represented with help of the property definitions related to the classes. Such property definitions may be based on general datatypes or based on specific values and value lists (e.g. for defining a supported range). Each class and each property may be defined with name and textual descriptions in multiple languages.
+Such a definition for a property representation can be used as base for product descriptions in e-catalogues or for B2B communications (see B2B e-commerce).
+
+
+== Content ==
+
+The IEC CDD is organized into different domains, each domain providing one of these product classifications. Each of these domains can be accessed directly using the HTML user interface of IEC CDD, and there is hierarchical browsing.
+The IEC CDD is freely available at https://cdd.iec.ch. 
+It identifiers items by IRDI. 
+Items are cross-linked with each other, within and across standards. 
+For example:
+
+0112/2///62720#UAA609 kilogram per hour bar is a Unit of measure
+It applies to these Quantity kinds (lists of compatible units):
+0112/2///61987#ABT544 Mass flow rate per pressure (defined in IEC 61987 on Process automation equipment).
+0112/2///62720#UAD220 variation of mass flow rate due to pressure
+It applies to the following product properties (both defined in IEC 61987 on Process automation equipment):
+0112/2///61987#ABB818 maximum influence of process pressure on mass flow
+0112/2///61987#ABB817 average influence of process pressure on mass flow
+IEC CDD hosts different product classifications and properties, based on international standards:
+
+process automation equipment (based on IEC 61987),
+low voltage switchgear and controlgear (based on IEC 62683),
+electro-electronic components (provided by IEC TC47),
+optics (based on ISO 23584, test),
+measuring instruments (based on IEC ISO 13584-501, test),
+environmental declaration (based on IEC 60721, test).
+Units of measure and Quantity kinds (based on IEC 62720), referenced by product properties.
+
+
+== Procedure to introduce new information into IEC CDD ==
+The procedure to integrate new concepts is defined by "ISO/IEC directives supplement – Procedures specific to IEC", Annex SL. In order to provide new content or improvement of the content of IEC CDD, a Change Request (CR) may be submitted to IEC SC3D. The CR is reviewed by SC3D experts for syntactic correctness and completeness. After that, during Evaluation stage the CR will be checked for correctness of formal definitions according to the definition rules as defined by ISO/IEC directives Part 2, as well as syntactic and semantic consistency. After these checks the CR is voted to reach Validation stage.
+
+
+== Notes ==
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+International Electrotechnical Commission	IEC 61360-4 - Common Data Dictionary (IEC CDD)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–Strunz_classification-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+title: "Nickel–Strunz classification"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–Strunz_classification"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:37.770582+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Nickel–Strunz classification is a scheme for categorizing minerals based upon their chemical composition, introduced by German mineralogist Karl Hugo Strunz (24 February 1910 – 19 April 2006) in his Mineralogische Tabellen (1941). The 4th and the 5th edition were also edited by Christel Tennyson (1966). It was followed by A.S. Povarennykh with a modified classification (1966 in Russian, 1972 in English).
+As curator of the Mineralogical Museum of Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (now known as the Humboldt University of Berlin), Strunz had been tasked with sorting the museum's geological collection according to crystal-chemical properties. His book Mineralogical Tables, has been through a number of modifications; the most recent edition, published in 2001, is the ninth (Mineralogical Tables by Hugo Strunz and Ernest H. Nickel (31 August 1925 – 18 July 2009)). The IMA/CNMNC supports the Nickel–Strunz database.
+
+
+== Nickel–Strunz code scheme ==
+The Nickel–Strunz code scheme is NN.XY.##x, where:
+
+NN: Nickel–Strunz mineral class number
+X: Nickel–Strunz mineral division letter
+Y: Nickel–Strunz mineral family letter
+##x: Nickel–Strunz mineral/group number; x an add-on letter
+
+
+== Nickel–Strunz mineral classes ==
+The current scheme divides minerals into ten classes, which are further divided into divisions, families and groups according to chemical composition and crystal structure.
+
+elements
+sulfides and sulfosalts
+halides
+oxides, hydroxides and arsenites
+carbonates and nitrates
+borates
+sulfates, chromates, molybdates and tungstates
+phosphates, arsenates and vanadates
+silicates
+organic compounds
+
+
+== IMA/CNMNC mineral classes ==
+IMA/CNMNC proposes a new hierarchical scheme (Mills et al. 2009), using the Nickel–Strunz classes (10 ed) this gives:
+
+Classification of minerals (non silicates)
+Nickel–Strunz class 01: Native Elements
+Class: native elements
+Nickel–Strunz class 02: Sulfides and Sulfosalts
+Class 02.A – 02.G: sulfides, selenides, tellurides (including arsenides, antimonides, bismuthinides)
+Class 02.H – 02.M: sulfosalts (including sulfarsenites, sulfantimonites, sulfobismuthites, etc.)
+Nickel–Strunz class 03: Halogenides
+Class: halides
+Nickel–Strunz class 04: Oxides
+Class: oxides
+Class: hydroxides
+Class: arsenites (including antimonites, bismuthites, sulfites, selenites and tellurites)
+Nickel–Strunz class 05: Carbonates and Nitrates
+Class: carbonates
+Class: nitrates
+Nickel–Strunz class 06: Borates
+Class: borates
+Subclass: nesoborates
+Subclass: soroborates
+Subclass: cycloborates
+Subclass: inoborates
+Subclass: phylloborates
+Subclass: tectoborates
+Nickel–Strunz class 07: Sulfates, Selenates, Tellurates
+Class: sulfates, selenates, tellurates
+Class: chromates
+Class: molybdate, wolframates and niobates
+Nickel–Strunz class 08: Phosphates, Arsenates, Vanadates
+Class: phosphates
+Class: arsenates and vanadates
+Nickel–Strunz class 10: Organic Compounds
+Class: organic compounds
+Classification of minerals (silicates)
+Nickel–Strunz class 09: Silicates and Germanates
+Class: silicates
+Subclass: nesosilicates
+Subclass: sorosilicates
+Subclass: cyclosilicates
+Subclass: inosilicates
+Subclass: phyllosilicates
+Subclass: tectosilicates without zeolitic H2O
+Subclass: tectosilicates with zeolitic H2O; zeolite family
+Subclass: unclassified silicates
+Subclass: germanates
+
+
+== See also ==
+Classification of non-silicate minerals
+Classification of silicate minerals
+Hey's Mineral Index
+Timeline of the discovery and classification of minerals
+Dana Classification System
+
+
+== Notes ==
+
+
+== References ==
+Mills, Stuart J.; Hatert, Frédéric; Nickel, Ernest H.; Ferraris, Giovanni (2009). "The standardisation of mineral group hierarchies: application to recent nomenclature proposals" (PDF). Eur. J. Mineral. 21 (5): 1073–1080. Bibcode:2009EJMin..21.1073M. doi:10.1127/0935-1221/2009/0021-1994. hdl:2268/29163. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 February 2011.
+
+
+== External links ==
+ Media related to Nickel–Strunz classification at Wikimedia Commons
+Strunz classification on Mindat

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhySH-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "PhySH"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhySH"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:38.897146+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+PhySH, an abbreviation for Physics Subject Headings, is a classification scheme developed by the American Physical Society (APS) as a universal classification scheme covering all branches of physics including astronomy, quantum computation, and physics education. This scheme was unveiled in January 2016. It substitutes the previous Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and is currently the working tool for all journals of APS and all scientific Conferences and Meetings called by APS.
+
+
+== Brief history ==
+PACS was created by AIP in the 1970s. AIP maintained and updated it until 2010, when AIP decided to keep PACS 2010 as its final version  because of the inherent limitations to the PACS system. Under these conditions, and confronted with the necessity to operate an efficient classification system well-accommodated to fast developments in various branches of physics, APS developed its own PhySH system. The development of PhySH started in 2012, and it has been unveiled in January 2016. Being word based, i.e., operating with regular English words rather than formal PACS codes, PhySH is much more intuitive than PACS. Also, new concepts originating in the course of the development of science can be organically incorporated into PhySH which creates a basis for its further development. Perpetual development is the idea laid into the basis of PhySH system which is expected to become the internationally recognized standard.
+
+
+== Basics of PhySH ==
+PhySH is based on three principal definitions: Disciplines, Facets, and Concepts. Their meaning can be best understood by browsing the PhySH webpage. There are currently 17 disciplines, from Accelerators & Beams, through Biological Physics and Networks, to Statistical Physics. Five facets include Research Areas, Physical Systems, Properties, Techniques, and Professional topics. Clicking on them opens lists of related concepts. Using the Search option for a specific term opens a string, or a set of strings, each of them beginning with the related facet that is followed by a set of concepts, beginning from broader and going to more specific. E.g., searching for Van der Waals results in three strings. One of them reads as:
+Physical systems > 3-dimensional systems > Complex materials > Heterostructures > Van der Waals heterostructures
+Such architecture of PhySH allows its easy extension, and PhySH is considered as a permanently developing rather than finished project. Authors of papers submitted to American physical journals are encouraged to provide editors with PhySH terms to assist in choosing proper reviewers, and some journals even require providing PhySH terms. PhySH is expected to expand with the grows of physics, and this should happen technically through the input coming from authors, reviewers, editors, and organizers of scientific conferences.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS)
+Computing Classification System (CCS)
+Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC)
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_and_Astronomy_Classification_Scheme-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_and_Astronomy_Classification_Scheme"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:40.029797+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) is a scheme developed in 1970 by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) for classifying scientific literature using a hierarchical set of codes. PACS has been used by over 160 international journals, including the Physical Review series since 1975. Since 2016, American Physical Society introduced the PhySH (Physics Subject Headings) system instead of PACS.
+
+
+== Discontinuation ==
+AIP has announced that PACS 2010 will be the final version, but it will continue to be available through their website. The decision was made to discontinue PACS, owing to the administrative complexity of the revision process and its future viability in light of changing technological and research trends. However, PACS is still in use by scientific journals.
+In association with Access Innovations, Inc., the AIP has developed a new "AIP Thesaurus", which it states will enable faster, more accurate and more efficient searches.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC)
+Computing Classification System (CCS)
+PhySH (Physics Subject Headings)
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+"Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS)". Physical Review Journals. 11 January 2008.
+https://web.archive.org/web/20070826124822/http://www.aip.org/pacs/Information on PACS
+https://web.archive.org/web/20171201041118/https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/pacs/pacs-2010-regular-editionPACS 2010
+"PACS 2010". physics.zju.edu.cn. Archived from the original on 2019-02-02. Retrieved 2019-02-01.
+"PACS 2010 Alphabetical Index". AIP Publishing.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_chemistry_and_physics-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+title: "Relationship between chemistry and physics"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_chemistry_and_physics"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:43.975563+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The relationship between chemistry and physics is a topic of debate in the philosophy of science. The issue is a complicated one, since both physics and chemistry are divided into multiple subfields, each with their own goals. A major theme is whether, and in what sense, chemistry can be said to "reduce" to physics.
+
+
+== Background ==
+Although physics and chemistry are branches of science that both study matter, they differ in the scopes of their respective subjects. While physics focuses on phenomena such as force, motion, electromagnetism, elementary particles, and spacetime, chemistry is concerned mainly with the structure and reactions of atoms and molecules, but does not necessarily deal with non-baryonic matter.  However, the two disciplines overlap in subjects concerning the behaviour of fluids, the thermodynamics of chemical reactions, the magnetic forces between atoms and molecules, and quantum chemistry. Moreover, the laws of chemistry highly depend on the laws of quantum mechanics. 
+
+
+== Material science ==
+In some respects the two sciences have developed independently, but less so towards the end of the twentieth century. There are many areas where there is major overlap, for instance both chemical physics and physical chemistry combine the two, while materials science is an interdisciplinary areas which combines both as well as some elements of engineering. This was deliberate, as recognized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, there are limitations to trying to force science into categories rather than focusing on the issues of importance, an approach now common in materials science.
+
+
+== Historical views ==
+In the 19th century, Auguste Comte in his hierarchy of the sciences, classified chemistry as more dependent than physics, as chemistry requires physics.
+In 1958, Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam put forward the idea that in the 20th century chemistry has been reduced to physics, as evidence for the unity of science.
+Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel laureate in Physics for his works on polymer physics and soft matter, criticized Comte's positivism in 1994, pointing it as the source of contempt for chemistry and other practical sciences among French scientists.
+
+
+== Physicists and Nobel Prizes in Chemistry ==
+The overlap between the chemistry and physics has led various physicists to earn the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Marie Curie is known for being the only scientist to have been awarded both the Nobel Prize in Physics (1903) and in Chemistry (in 1911). Ernest Rutherford known for the Rutherford scattering experiments that revealed the internal structure of the atom, was surprised to have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1908, during the Nobel banquet he said:
+
+I have dealt with many different transformations with various periods of time, but the quickest that I have met was my own transformation in one moment from a physicist to a chemist.
+Walter Kohn who won the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the development of density functional theory remarked that he never took a course in chemistry.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Relationship between mathematics and physics
+
+
+== References ==