MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606427210 · doi:10.3138/gsi.10.2.05

Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Memory: The Case of Ernst Zündel

2016· article· en· W2606427210 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jason Tingler

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialThe HolocaustMeaning (existential)ConsciousnessIdentity (music)PsychoanalysisSociologyPerspective (graphical)HistoryAestheticsLawPolitical sciencePsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until his extradition to Germany in 2005, Ernst Zündel was the largest promoter of Holocaust denial literature in the world. In 1985, Zündel was even put on trial in Toronto for his fallacious publications. The trial was brought by Holocaust survivors seeking to safeguard Holocaust memory, which had grown in Canada's public consciousness during the 1960s and 1970s, but which had been viciously attacked by Zündel. This article explores the origins and history of Zündel's denial, and offers a new perspective on a well-known denier. While antisemitism played an essential role, the author argues that to understand Zündel's denial requires contextualizing his deplorable beliefs, as denial can also serve a special role in deniers' sense of themselves. By taking issues of identity seriously, such as how one fabricates a historical web of meaning, we can better understand what causes some people to deny the undeniable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.026
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207