The underlying physics is more complicated than strictly voltage-controlled or current-controlled. However, a reasonable physics model is that trying to draw electrons out of the base (NPN example) is a lossy process, since most of the electrons that leave the emitter get swept away to the collector before they have a chance to come out the base. That view is definitely current-dominated.

From a circuit point of view, the current-controlled view is usually more useful. You put a little current into the base, and that causes a larger current into the collector. Trying to think of controlling the B-E voltage instead, especially since small changes in voltage cause large changes in current, is usually more cumbersome and less useful than thinking of controlling the B-E current.

Quote: "...most of the electrons that leave the emitter get swept away to the collector before they have a chance to come out the base. That view is definitely current-dominated."

My response: I cannot share such a view. What means "dominated" in this context? When most of the electrons leaving the emitter ate attracted by the collector and only 1% are going to the base - how can you say that these 1% "control" the rest of 99%? Even from a energy point of view it is impossible that a smaller current can directly "control/determine" a larger current. (Regarding the base current, Barrie Gilbert speaks of a "nuisance" and a "defect") .

Perhaps you prefer - from the circuit point of view - the current-controlled view. However, then you must realize that such a view is in severe contradiction to many observations and explanations (RE-feedback, tempco -2mV/K, low-resistive base bias, current mirror principle, Early effect, voltage gain is independent on hfe,....)

continued: To understand your position it would be great if you would mention to me one single application (circuit) where the current-controlled view has advantages during design of the circuit and/or for a better understanding.

This is an interesting discussion, but not suited for comments.

Why not? I am really surprised. For my understanding it directly concerns the question (from Miss Mular). He/she was asking for the role of re=1/gm where gm is a quantity which connects the input VOLTAGE with the output CURRENT. And the transconductance gm is the key parameter for the explanation of the BJT working principle based on voltage-control. It would be interesting to hear/read the view of the questioner on this subject.

Content is not easily noticed in comments, and can get deleted altogether.

So I ask myself: What is the purpose of a comments section? Not to clarify misunderstandings/misconceptions?