The Discovery of Insulin: Is There Glory Enough for All?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 2011, the University of Toronto and the TorontoheadquarteredGairdner Foundation partnered to celebrate theninetieth anniversary of the discovery of insulin. In 1921, fourscientists worked to discover, isolate, and purify insulin at theUniversity of Toronto: Frederick Banting, John J. R. Macleod,James B. Collip, and Charles H. Best. The credit for this achievementhas been assigned in varying ways. Popular opinion, inToronto and worldwide, has bestowed the recognition for discoveryupon Banting and Best. Indeed, many noted diabetologistshave credited the achievement to this pair. However, theNobel Committee awarded the Prize in Physiology or Medicineto Banting and Macleod in 1923. Michael Bliss, in his 1982history of the discovery of insulin, revisited the question ofwho really is responsible for this wonder drug. Our essay willexplore the pathway toward the discovery of insulin and seekto understand why the credit for this monumental achievementwas apportioned in such different ways.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".