MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044411152 · doi:10.1017/s0963180100904134

Forgiving and Forgetting: A Post-Holocaust Dialogue on the Possibility of Healing

2000· article· en· W2044411152 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Thomasma, David N. Weisstub

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicForgiveness and Related Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsTorturePoliticsCriminologyIndigenousPower (physics)DeportationRefugeePolitical scienceSociologyLawGender studiesImmigrationHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the end of this century there are so many occasions, so many residues of the most violent of times, that challenge the very idea of forgiveness—residues personal, political, social, and cultural. The harms are vast and yet close to home: alcoholism takes its toll on relationships, divorce undermines love, parental harshness and abuse create generations of problems for offspring, addictions of every sort turn humans into caged spirits. Additional and even greater challenges include infidelity, breaking public promises, political power plays, torture, genocidal slaughtering of races and tribes, civil and cultural wars, ancient enmities—Northern Ireland, Bosnia, the Tutsis and Hutus, the Shiite and Suni Moslems, the settlers and African immigrants in South Africa, indigenous populations against the dominant culture. The open violence and rapaciousness of human enmity can be viewed now in the displacement of masses of people in Kosovo. Said the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, about the Kosovo crisis: “It is frightening … that this century, as in its darkest hours, should end with the mass deportation of innocent people.”

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare EthicsSame topicForgiveness and Related BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207