[The discovery of insulin: what really happened 80 years ago].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1923 for the discovery of insulin in 1921 was awarded to Frederick G. Banting and John J.R. MacLeod. This choice was highly debated: Banting decided to share his part of the prize with his younger co-worker Charles H. Best, and MacLeod, too, decided to share his part with biochemist James B. Collip. Although previous investigators such as Nicolas C. Paulesco, had obtained some positive results isolating "the internal secretion" of the pancreas, only the group in Toronto succeeded in proving consistently the efficacy of their insulin extracts. Banting had the idea of isolating insulin after reading an article in a medical journal. He received support for his proposed research at the University of Toronto, under the direction of John J.R. MacLeod and was assisted by Charles H. Best, a medical student. Banting's and Best's initial experiments were not definitive, but their apparently favorable results encouraged greater efforts that, with the important contribution of biochemist James B. Collip who has hardly ever been associated with this event, culminated in the discovery of insulin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".