Texts and Documents : E. C. Noble in June 1921, and His Account of the Discovery of Insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article concerns the events in Toronto during June 1921 that led to the discovery of insulin and the controversy that followed. It draws attention to the hitherto unnoticed participation of E. C. Noble in the early lab work on dog 386 between 17 June and 26 June 1921. None of the accounts of the discovery of insulin written by the principal discoverers, Frederick Banting, Charles Best, J. B. Collip, and J. J. R. Macleod, acknowledge Noble's participation in the lab. The fact of his participation has several implications worth noting, as they refine the history of the discovery of insulin-not the least of which is the demonstration of his credentials as a reliable witness to the lab environment in which the first successes were achieved. He remains the only participant in the discovery whose account of the insulin project has not been published; this article includes Noble's anniversary account of 1971.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".