MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057178367 · doi:10.1515/ci-2014-0508

IUPAC and OPCW Working Toward Responsible Science

2014· article· en· W2057178367 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter G. Mahaffy, Joseph Zondervan, Alastair Hay, Daniel Feakes, Jonathan E. Forman

Bibliographic record

VenueChemistry International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of LeedsOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical WeaponsKing's University College
KeywordsNazismSymbol (formal)CyanideChemistryHydrogen cyanideWorld War IIChemistPolitical scienceLawPoliticsPhilosophyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imagine being a chemist in the summer of 1941, four years prior to the end of the Second World War. The pressure to use the powerful knowledge of chemistry in service of national and political interests is enormous. The end result? At the Auschwitz Nazi extermination camp, Zyklon B, an infamous weapon of mass destruction, is first used. Over the next four years it claims responsibility for the lives of several million people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other death camps. When mixed with water, Zyklon B releases hydrogen cyanide, which fatally interferes with the respiratory processes of those inhaling it. Hydrogen cyanide is a simple, triatomic molecule whose power for destruction is now burned into our global consciousness as a symbol of how badly things can go wrong when the tools of chemistry are misused. Prior to the Second World War, hydrogen cyanide had been used as a delousing agent and insecticide, and this toxicity inspired its use in designing a new way to kill people.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0130.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1460.097

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemistry InternationalSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207