MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291713896 · doi:10.3138/gsi.9.2.03

Turks Who Saved Armenians: Righteous Muslims during the Armenian Genocide

2015· article· en· W2291713896 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.
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

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTurkey's Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArmenianGenocideContext (archaeology)GermanPhenomenonHistoryAncient historyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the Armenian Genocide, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, and other Muslims were both perpetrators and beneficiaries of the deportations and killing—but they also saved non-Muslims. This study documents and analyzes the ways in which Armenians were rescued and the various motives of the rescuers. Unlike previous studies, which are based solely on survivor oral histories or anecdotal family material, this paper also utilizes missionary reports, published survivor memoirs, German consular reports, archival sources, and other material. It discusses the concept of Righteous among the Nations and it explores the application of this idea to the context of the Armenian Genocide. Wider recognition of the phenomenon of Turks who saved Armenians can facilitate dialogue between Armenians and Turks today, many of whom tend to view each other as enemies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.306 · 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