A major failure of scientific governance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public inquiry is needed to learn from an egregious case Today The BMJ retracts a 1989 paper by R K Chandra,1 2 a Canadian scientist who recently lost a libel case against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The broadcaster had accused him in television programmes of scientific fraud and financial deception.3 4 Chandra has had one other paper retracted,5 but it seems probable that many of his published studies are fraudulent. This long running and still unresolved saga raises serious questions about the governance of science and calls for a comprehensive response. The BMJ started the process that led to the Canadian programmes when in 2000 it asked Chandra’s university, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, to investigate a study submitted to the journal that the editors thought might be fraudulent.3 Unknown to The BMJ editors, the university had already done an investigation in 1994-95, which concluded that “scientific misconduct had been committed by Dr Chandra.” The allegations had been made by the university’s professor of paediatrics. The investigating committee faced great difficulties. It noted that “no raw data (or files) of any kind were exhibited”; it could not “identify anyone who did or remembers a significant amount of the work”; and “the coauthors of the papers had little or very likely nothing to …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it