MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195347273 · doi:10.1086/715655

Rethinking Collaboration: Medical Research and Working Relationships at the Iranian Pasteur Institute

2021· article· en· W3195347273 on OpenAlexaff
Elise K. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueIsis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PoliticsGovernment (linguistics)GeopoliticsSovereigntySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pasteur Institute of Iran underwent a major expansion of its research productivity and international recognition during some of the most significant events of modern Iranian history: the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, followed by the Anglo-American coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. During this period, the institute’s French director, Marcel Baltazard, was embedded in a complex set of working relationships with his Iranian employees, research subjects, and government ministers; American scientists and foreign aid workers; and French Pasteurians and diplomats. Baltazard constantly described these relationships as instances of “collaboration.” The temporal and geographical context demands a critical reading of scientific collaboration alongside the negative implications of political collaboration. Investigating the political commitments and social attitudes of the French director and Iranian staff, this essay demonstrates that scientific collaboration at the institute both reinforced socioeconomic inequalities within Iran and mirrored global Cold War geopolitics that undermined Iranian sovereignty.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0290.042
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.080 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsisSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207