MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323935831 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100015559

Neuroscience in Nazi Europe Part III: Victims of the Third Reich

2012· review· en· W2323935831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lawrence A. Zeidman, Daniel Kondziella

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversität Wien
KeywordsNazismHumanityNazi GermanyThe HolocaustTragedy (event)PsychoanalysisNeuroscientistPsychologyNeuroscienceLawPhilosophyGermanPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Part I, neuroscience collaborators with the Nazis were discussed, and in Part II, neuroscience resistors were discussed. In Part III, we discuss the tragedy regarding european neuroscientists who became victims of the Nazi onslaught on “non-Aryan” doctors. Some of these unfortunate neuroscientists survived Nazi concentration camps, but most were murdered. We discuss the circumstances and environment which stripped these neuroscientists of their profession, then of their personal rights and freedom, and then of their lives. We include a background analysis of anti-Semitism and Nazism in their various countries, then discuss in depth seven exemplary neuroscientist Holocaust victims; including Germans Ludwig Pick, Arthur Simons, and Raphael Weichbrodt, Austrians Alexander Spitzer and Viktor Frankl, and Poles Lucja Frey and Wladyslaw Sterling. by recognizing and remembering these victims of neuroscience, we pay homage and do not allow humanity to forget, lest this dark period in history ever repeat itself.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.148 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207