Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the controversy surrounding the 2004 suicide of Dan Markingson in a clinical trial at a University of Minnesota hospital. It explains the rationale behind a recent initiative by a group of more than 170 international scholars to request a publicly accountable inquiry into the events surrounding the suicide and into the lack of proper investigation by the University and several other agencies (including the FDA and professional regulators) mandated to protect patients and research subjects. The case raises serious and ongoing concerns about the enrollment of vulnerable psychiatric patients in research, coercion and undue influence, the impact of conflicts of interest on the behavior of clinical investigators and university administrators, the qualifications of research personnel, and the integrity of medical research at major medical schools. The arguments invoked by various institutional players to reject a further investigation shows how existing research ethics review procedures may result in superficial assessments that can easily be employed as a protective shield. Instead of promoting better ethical standards in research, they may sometimes become tools to hide abuse.
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 | 0.079 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".