Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout 2005, I raised serious concerns about a large number of papers authored by Smith and Smith et al dating back to 1996. Allegations included deceptive selective reporting of findings, omission of conflicting data, falsification and fabrication of data, bogus authorship, and intentional republication of numerous papers under different titles and under different authorship. In all cases, allegations that were sent to your office and to NSERC were accompanied by significant documentations. Unfortunately in 2005, there was no transparent process for investigating the allegations in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement. As a result, the investigation conducted by the university was superficial and incomplete and most allegations were left unanswered. In 2006, after receiving the university report, Council officials felt the university’s “remedial action ” was “rather minor in light of the many breaches of publication practices, ” Following a review by the CPSI, NSERC’s integrity committee recommended the council reprimand the University for conducting an investigation that “was found to lack thoroughness.” There is now considerable evidence showing that the remedial action taken by the university in 2006 was ineffective in preventing the reoccurrence of academic misconduct. The university administration should take responsibility for the re-emergence of this problem. Below, I present you with the allegations of academic misconduct concerning a paper which has been very recently published in the Canadian Journal of Physics. Allegations concerning other papers published between 2006-2009 will follow shortly after the funding source for each case is confirmed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.498 | 0.264 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".