The demand for reparations and the grievances of war crime victims in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The end of cold war, the revival of nationalism, the rise of human rights concern and the development of information technology give rise to the rising tide of reparations demand in China and Asia at the end of the 20th century. The Chinese WWII victims of war crime have been demanding historical justice, sincere apology and legal claim towards Japan Government and Japanese corporations. The wave of reparations among Asian victims is the response of a delayed justice, an attempt to restore human dignity from the defects of the Tokyo War Crime Trial and the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Compared with the American, the Canadian, the Dutch, the Korean and the Philippines counterparts, the Chinese war crime victims are the most silent group, despite the fact that they suffered the most from the Japanese militarism in WWII. This thesis is an attempt to analyze, from the state-society relations perspective, the demand for reparations in contemporary China. Research data is collected mainly by interviewing more than 20 activists and 50 Chinese war crime victims of different kinds, including the survivors of massacre, the sex slaves (comfort women), the forced labors, the victims of indiscriminative bombing, chemical-bacteria warfare and biological experiment. Drawing from this variety of data, this paper attempts to analyze the reasons for their silence over half century, and explores the reasons for their redress in recent years. Findings show that organizational and institutional limitation, nationalism and ideology constituted obstacles for reparations movement in China before 1978. During the wave of global reparations in 1990s, China Government was the major obstacle for reparations claim. With the change in government role and attitude in late 1990s and the forces of globalization, the demand for reparations among victims and activists were more active and the movement will be more significant in the coming years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".