Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first quarter century after its beginning in 1876 Eli Lilly and Company was like dozens, probably hundreds, of other pharmaceutical concerns. It made and sold sugar-coated pills, fluid extracts, elixirs, and syrups in Indianapolis and surrounding communities. Plants provided much of the raw material, and hand work constituted the primary method of production. Hand-rolled pills, for example, came in many sizes and shapes, none uniform. More important, the efficacy of the pills and elixirs remained unprovedespite claims to the contrary. Although the Indianapolis firm was more careful in making and promoting drugs than the patent medicine men of the era, the company remained ambivalent about scientific research. One of its best sellers at the turn of the century was Succus Alterans. Produced from a secret formula, purportedly derived from Creek Indians, Succus Alterans was sold primarily as a "blood purifier " and treatment for "syphilitic afflictions " but also was recommended for "certain types of rheumatism and especially skin diseases like eczema, psoriasis, etc. " [3].
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.183 | 0.208 |
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".