Conflicting Interests in Toronto: Anatomy of a Controversy at the Interface of Academia and Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2000, the University of Toronto breached a contract it held with me, initiating a sequence of events that has led to a public letter to the University from a large number of senior figures in the psychopharmacology community, protesting against the infringement of academic freedom involved, and a first-ever legal action seeking redress for violation of academic freedom. This case has been intertwined from the start with a longer running debate about the possibility that the SSRI group of antidepressants may have the potential to trigger suicidality or other serious effects in a subgroup of takers. And this specific issue connects to concerns about conflict of interest in the domain of therapeutics, as well as in science in general, the ghostwriting of scientific articles, and a series of other hot-spots on the interface between academia and industry.
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 | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.108 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".