Bibliographic record
Abstract
That rape and sexual enslavement of Muslim women and girls was used as an ethnic cleansing strategy by the Bosnian-Serbs in the wars in the former Yugoslavia is now well known.On February 22, 2001 when the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY, convicted three Bosnian-Serb soldiers of crimes against humanity for this tactic, its verdict was hailed as groundbreaking.It signaled that the business as usual dismissal of war-time rape as a matter of boys being boys or collateral damage was at an end.Less well known are the forces that converged to make this conviction possible.Less discussed are the radical implications of this judgment and the promise it holds for uncovering the gender biases of international law and challenging them.The February 22, 2001 verdict, in what is known as the Kunarac case, was the culmination of a trial that was groundbreaking from beginning to end.First was the unique nature of the indictment.This was the first war crimes trial that dealt exclusively with rape, sexual abuse and sexual enslavement.It was the first indictment that clearly distinguished rape from torture.The nature of the proceedings was also distinctive.In addition to defining rape in terms of criteria of consent rather than force, so that rape was understood in terms of unwanted rather than forced penetration, the Court distinguished genuine consent from apparent consent, indicating that the context of the situation established whether or not genuine consent was
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".