MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009074623 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100054068

Neuroscience in Nazi Europe Part I: Eugenics, Human Experimentation, and Mass Murder

2011· review· en· W2009074623 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lawrence A. Zeidman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsEugenicsNazismPsychiatryNazi GermanyMental diseaseCriminologyWorld War IIPsychoanalysisPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945 waged a veritable war throughout Europe to eliminate neurologic disease from the gene pool. Fueled by eugenic policies on racial hygiene, the Nazis first undertook a sterilization campaign against "mental defectives," which included neurologic patients with epilepsy and other disorders, as well as psychiatric patients. From 1939-41 the Nazis instead resorted to "euthanasia" of many of the same patients. Some neuroscientists were collaborators in this program, using patients for research, or using extracted brains following their murder. Other reviews have focused on Hallervorden, Spatz, Schaltenbrand, Scherer, and Gross, but in this review the focus is on neuroscientists not well described in the neurology literature, including Scholz, Ostertag, Schneider, Nachtsheim, and von Weizsäcker. Only by understanding the actions of neuroscientists during this dark period can we learn from the slippery slope down which they traveled, and prevent history from repeating itself.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207