MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W332419683

Pioneer's Big Lie

2003· article· en· W332419683 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul A. Lombardo

Bibliographic record

VenueAlbany law review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEugenicsNazismLawSociologyGermanPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisPhilosophyPsychologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of lie always contains certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to big lie than to little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of ties that were too big. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (1) In the spring of 2002, I published an article entitled American Breed: Nazi Eugenics and the Origins of the as part of symposium edition of the Albany Law Review. (2) My objective was to present a detailed analysis of the ... origins of the Fund (3) and to show the connections between Nazi eugenics and one branch of the American eugenics movement that I described as purveying a malevolent brand of biological determinism. (4) I collected published evidence on the Fund's history and supplemented it with material from several archival collections--focusing on letters and other documents that explained the relationship between Pioneer's first President, Harry Laughlin, and Pioneer's founder, Wickliffe Draper. The evidence thus assembled convinced me that both Laughlin and Draper were sympathetic to the eugenic agenda being crafted in the mid-1930s by the Nazis. As they launched their private eugenic foundation, they hoped to emulate the German model. (5) To support my conclusions I pointed to factors such as Laughlin's arrangement for Draper's attendance at Nazi population conference in Berlin, (6) as well as Laughlin's excitement on receiving his own Nazi-conferred honorary degree. (7) I noted parallels between projects funded by Draper before was incorporated and similar projects in its early years as well as more recently. (8) The unyielding position of present day spokesmen--that the foundation's past contains no links to Nazi eugenics (9)--demonstrates to me the unwillingness of the to confront its troubling history. Rather than admitting to the obvious implications of its founders' actions and motives as revealed in their unguarded personal commentary, the today continues to declare that Laughlin was life-long scientist (10) and Draper, merely gentleman scholar. (11) supporters claim that rather than being part of the darkest chapter of the multifaceted story of American eugenics, Laughlin and Draper--and the itself--are victims of recent rash of political correctness and Pioneer bashing. (12) Why does refuse to face its history? Perhaps it is simply continuing practice honed by leaders like the late Harry Weyher. (13) As I explained in my first Albany Law Review article, past spokesmen made few public statements, but more recently the has been particularly aggressive in leveling the accusation of 'McCarthyism' at anyone who connects its founding to the American eugenicists who celebrated Hitler's ascendancy. (14) This strategy--denying the obvious, feigning shock at any challenge to the sanitized, official history of as compiled by beneficiaries and apologists--resembles well known tactic. It is called the Big Lie and it was made famous by Adolf Hitler, whose articulation of the scheme of deceit is quoted above from Mein Kampf. (15) The technique was used to justify his agenda against the Jews. (16) leader Weyher resorted to the same technique as counter to the invariably bad publicity generated by news commentary on the activities of grantees (17) in addition to the growing historical documentation of the Fund's own dark beginnings. (18) Apparently, University of Western Ontario psychologist J. Philippe Rushton agrees with Weyher's strategy and has embraced his methods. …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlbany law reviewSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207