Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. After the discovery of insulin at the University of Toronto in 1921–22, Frederick Banting and Charles Best downplayed the contributions of physiology professor John James Rickard Macleod, the director of the laboratory where the discovery was made. Banting and Best, their allies, and to a lesser extent the university promoted a “fairy tale” version in which the two young investigators made the discovery on their own, creating the so-called “Banting and Best myth.” Over the next 60 years, the myth prevailed and Macleod's reputation became increasingly tarnished, with both Banting and Best actively maligning their former mentor. While the publication of Michael Bliss’ The Discovery of Insulin in 1982 placed Macleod's reputation on the road to recovery, there are still many lingering issues that have been raised, and Macleod remains misunderstood, misinterpreted, and maligned. This paper, using primary and secondary historical sources, addresses topics that have been repetitively raised by Macleod's detractors over the past century.
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 | 0.019 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".