MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554607003 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.18.2.241

Failed Venture: Gordon Murray and the W. P. Caven Memorial Research Foundation, 1949–74

2001· article· en· W1554607003 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Shelley McKellar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Context (archaeology)ManagementDisappointmentSociologyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceLawMedicinePsychologyHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the founding and operation of the W. P. Caven Memorial Research Foundation, a private Toronto laboratory, which existed from 1949 to 1974. The Caven Foundation's Research Director was celebrated Toronto surgeon Gordon Murray (1894-1976), who, in 1949, accepted this position amidst personal and public expectations of great medical discoveries and innovations to come. For 25 years Murray carried on his research at the Caven Foundation, generating more controversy and disappointment than medical cures, before the laboratory was closed for financial reasons. What might have been a successful alternative to the University-based medical research structure in Canada resulted in a failed venture. The Foundation did not become a viable research centre largely because of its Research Director and his inability to adapt to the many changes occurring in the conduct and funding of clinical research. The history of the Caven Foundation is explored here within the context of increasingly specialized research techniques and methodology, the rising predominance of the interdisciplinary research team, and the new system of grantsmanship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207