<i>Ad hoc</i>Rules, Rights, and Rituals: The Politics of Mass Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of the growing incidence of mass death incidents due to factors such as climate change, technology, terrorism and globalization there are relatively few rules and procedures in place to deal with the dead and where rules do exist they are often ignored or broken. Furthermore, because of the very different cultural, legal, financial, and religious nature of states and victims international agreements, conventions and best practices are difficult to establish. This paper highlights the often political and ad hoc nature of the decisions that have to be made by responders and the challenges this presents for policy‐makers as well as the families of the victims. While accepting the need for flexibility in emergency situations, the paper identifies some of the areas where public policy reforms and frameworks are most needed in order to establish clearer rules and procedures for dealing with the dead. Finally, the paper calls for the policies and procedures that do exist to be informed by and subject to the same principles of public administration, such as accountability and transparency, that govern other areas public policy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".