Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overview of German, Nazi, and Holocaust medicine brings together a group of subjects discussed separately elsewhere. Topics considered include German medicine before and during the Nazi era, such as advanced concepts in epidemiology, preventive medicine, public health policy, screening programs, occupational health laws, compensation for certain medical conditions, and two remarkable guidelines for informed consent for medical procedures; also considered are the Nuremberg Code; American models for early Nazi programs, including compulsory sterilization, abusive medical experiments on prison inmates, and discrimination against black people; two ironies in US and Nazi laws; social Darwinism and racial hygiene; complicity of Nazi physicians, including the acts of sterilization, human experimentation, and genocide; Nazi persecution of Jewish physicians; eponyms of unethical German physicians with particular emphasis on Reiter, Hallervorden, and Pernkopf; eponyms of famous physicians who were Nazi victims, including Pick and van Creveld; and finally, a recommendation for convening an international committee of physicians and ethicists to deal with five issues: (a) to propose alternative names for eponyms of physicians who exhibited complicity during the Nazi era; (b) to honor the eponyms and stories of physicians who were victims of Nazi atrocities and genocide; (c) to apply vigorous pressure to those German and Austrian Institutes that have not yet undertaken investigations to determine if the bodies of Nazi victims remain in their collections; (d) to recommend holding annual commemorations in medical schools and research institutes worldwide to remember and to reflect on the victims of compromised medical practice, particularly, but not exclusively, during the Nazi era because atrocities and acts of genocide have occurred elsewhere; and (e) to examine the influence of any political ideology that compromises the practice of medicine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".