MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1870766646

Returning Evidence to the Scene of the Crime: Why the Anfal Files Should be Repatriated to Iraqi Kurdistan

2010· article· en· W1870766646 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivaria · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)LawPolitical scienceHuman rightsLegislatureGovernment (linguistics)GenocideNational security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le 22 avril 2008, cinq ans aprs l'invasion amricaine de l'Iraq, la Society of American Archivists (SAA) et l'Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA) ont mis une dclaration commune demandant aux autorits amricaines de rapatrier les millions de documents du renseignement saisis et d'intervenir auprs du gou vernement du Kurdistan afin de retourner les dossiers de l'Anfal iraquien la Iraq National Library and Archive, Bagdad.Les dossiers de l'Anfal, qui documentent le gnocide iraquien des Kurdes durant la deuxime moiti des annes 1980, avaient t saisis par les peshmergas kurdes pendant les insurrections de mars 1991 suite la premire guerre du Golfe.Ils ont t transfrs aux tats-Unis pour entreposage scuritaire et pour les analyses dans l'optique des crimes contre l'humanit, tout en demeurant proprit kurde.La SAA et l'ACA ont bas leur dclaration sur le principe archivistique de l'inalinabilit des documents nationaux, concept qui affirme que l'alination des documents nationaux ne peut se faire que par un acte lgislatif de l'tat.Ce principe de l'inalinabilit, cependant, est incompatible avec les lois de la guerre qui permettent la saisie de documents d'tat pendant les hostilits; il entre en conflit avec le rgime lgal international en matire de droits humains au sujet de la restitution des dossiers de scurit d'tat un rgime rpressif qui pourrait s'en servir nouveau; et il contredit l'entente d'origine entre les autorits amricaines et kurdes au sujet du droit de proprit des dossiers de l'Anfal.En effet, tant donn l'appa rence monte d'un nouveau rgime rpressif en Iraq -avec une faction qui gouverne au dtriment des autres -il y a un danger considrable de rapatrier les dossiers de l'Anfal et les archives des atrocits d'Hussein aux thocrates au pouvoir en Iraq avant qu'aucune rconciliation politique n'ait pu s'enraciner.Les notions de patrimoine historique et de provenance encouragent aussi le retour des documents de l'Anfal au Kurdistan iraquien.ABSTRACT On 22 April 2008, five years after the American invasion of Iraq, the Society of American Archivists (SAA) and the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA) issued a joint statement calling for American authorities to repatriate millions of captured intelligence documents and intervene with the "government of Kurdistan" to return the Iraqi Anfal files to the Iraq National Library and Archive in Baghdad.The Anfal files, which chronicle Iraq's genocide against the Kurds during the mid-to late-1980s, were captured by Kurdish peshmerga in the March 1991 uprisings fol lowing the first Gulf War.They were transferred to the United States for safe storage

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.307
Teacher spread0.234 · 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