MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

COMMENTARY: SCIENCE SCANDAL OR ETHICS SCANDAL? OLIVIERI REDUX

2007· article· en· W2068092899 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioethics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHERODeceptionIconScientific misconductFace (sociological concept)LawPublishingPolitical scienceSociologyArtLiteratureMedicineSocial scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr. Nancy Olivieri has become an icon of research integrity for her insistence on publishing adverse data about a drug she was investigating. She has been celebrated world-wide as a hero of biomedical ethics for her bravery in disclosing potential dangers to research subjects, in the face of both drug company threats and coercive pressures from her hospital and university. Like so many other 'whistle-blowers' however, she now faces both personal vilification and disturbing accusations of scientific error. The case against Olivieri is assessed and found to be baseless.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.670
GPT teacher head0.645
Teacher spread0.025 · 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