MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1668992964 · doi:10.3138/gsi.9.1.01

Introduction: The Ottoman Genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks

2015· article· en· W1668992964 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roger W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTurkey's Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideGreeksArmenianTurkishDenialEthnic CleansingGermanPolitical scienceAncient historyHistoryLawPsychologyPhilosophyPsychoanalysisLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One hundred years ago, the Ottoman regime, best known as that of the Young Turks, began a series of actions that led to the genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks that only ended in 1923. The articles presented in this special issue of Genocide Studies International deal with the competing interpretations of why the Armenian Genocide occurred, with what the German archives reveal about it and any German responsibility for it, and with Turkish denial since the 1960s. They also make major contributions to understanding the lesser-known Ottoman genocides, those against the Assyrians and the Greeks. There are also questions raised about the concept of genocide and its relation to ethnic cleansing, massacres, deportation, and war. Overall, there is the theme of the complexity of genocide: modes, techniques, and motives. Careful consideration of the Ottoman genocides deepens our understanding of what genocide is and how it can be enacted. What must be averted is letting its complexity become a cover for denial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicTurkey's Politics and SocietyFrench-language works237,207