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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essays collected in this volume stem from papers delivered at a conference sponsored by the German Historical Institute in Amsterdam in 2003. Dedicated to exploring how the Allied powers, and indeed the Germans themselves, approached the prosecution of Nazi crimes, this volume is a welcome departure from earlier editions on postwar justice which have tended to focus more exclusively on proceedings at Nuremberg. The eleven articles included here consider instead a wide array of judicial responses to Nazi crimes including American military trials in occupied Germany, trials launched in East and West Germany and in Austria, denaturalization proceedings held in the United States against suspected Nazi perpetrators, and trials involving Holocaust deniers in Great Britain and Canada. Although the contributions included here deal with diverse aspects of national and international law and are not easily grouped, dominant themes include the continuities between the Nazi era and postwar German judiciaries, the impact of the Cold War on the process of adjudicating Nazi crimes in East and West German courts, and the perception and portrayal of Wehrmacht crimes in West and reunified Germany. Further, contributions to this volume illuminate the critical role of the American military in the investigation and prosecution of Nazi war criminals in the immediate postwar context, and the role of legal proceedings in establishing the historical record of the Holocaust. Taken together, the essays included here effectively broaden the spectrum of legal and historical issues which have thus far shaped the historiography surrounding Nazi crimes and the law.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it