MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W332419683

Pioneer's Big Lie

2003· article· en· W332419683 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul A. Lombardo

Notice bibliographique

RevueAlbany law review · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEugenicsNazismLawSociologyGermanPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisPhilosophyPsychologyPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of lie always contains certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to big lie than to little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of ties that were too big. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1) In the spring of 2002, I published an article entitled American Breed: Nazi Eugenics and the Origins of the as part of symposium edition of the Albany Law Review. (2) My objective was to present a detailed analysis of the ... origins of the Fund (3) and to show the connections between Nazi eugenics and one branch of the American eugenics movement that I described as purveying a malevolent brand of biological determinism. (4) I collected published evidence on the Fund's history and supplemented it with material from several archival collections--focusing on letters and other documents that explained the relationship between Pioneer's first President, Harry Laughlin, and Pioneer's founder, Wickliffe Draper. The evidence thus assembled convinced me that both Laughlin and Draper were sympathetic to the eugenic agenda being crafted in the mid-1930s by the Nazis. As they launched their private eugenic foundation, they hoped to emulate the German model. (5) To support my conclusions I pointed to factors such as Laughlin's arrangement for Draper's attendance at Nazi population conference in Berlin, (6) as well as Laughlin's excitement on receiving his own Nazi-conferred honorary degree. (7) I noted parallels between projects funded by Draper before was incorporated and similar projects in its early years as well as more recently. (8) The unyielding position of present day spokesmen--that the foundation's past contains no links to Nazi eugenics (9)--demonstrates to me the unwillingness of the to confront its troubling history. Rather than admitting to the obvious implications of its founders' actions and motives as revealed in their unguarded personal commentary, the today continues to declare that Laughlin was life-long scientist (10) and Draper, merely gentleman scholar. (11) supporters claim that rather than being part of the darkest chapter of the multifaceted story of American eugenics, Laughlin and Draper--and the itself--are victims of recent rash of political correctness and Pioneer bashing. (12) Why does refuse to face its history? Perhaps it is simply continuing practice honed by leaders like the late Harry Weyher. (13) As I explained in my first Albany Law Review article, past spokesmen made few public statements, but more recently the has been particularly aggressive in leveling the accusation of 'McCarthyism' at anyone who connects its founding to the American eugenicists who celebrated Hitler's ascendancy. (14) This strategy--denying the obvious, feigning shock at any challenge to the sanitized, official history of as compiled by beneficiaries and apologists--resembles well known tactic. It is called the Big Lie and it was made famous by Adolf Hitler, whose articulation of the scheme of deceit is quoted above from Mein Kampf. (15) The technique was used to justify his agenda against the Jews. (16) leader Weyher resorted to the same technique as counter to the invariably bad publicity generated by news commentary on the activities of grantees (17) in addition to the growing historical documentation of the Fund's own dark beginnings. (18) Apparently, University of Western Ontario psychologist J. Philippe Rushton agrees with Weyher's strategy and has embraced his methods. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,042

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,006
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,309 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAlbany law reviewMême sujetEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareTravaux en français237 207