MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771801115 · doi:10.3138/gsi.11.1.05

“Living with Ourselves”—Australia and East Timorese Self-Determination, 1973–1979

2017· article· en· W2771801115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam Hughes Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianNegotiationTreatyPolitical sciencePoliticsPopulationHuman rightsGeographyLawSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines Australian attitudes and decisions which undermined East Timorese self-determination between 1973 and 1979—beginning before the illegal Indonesian invasion in 1975 and ending in February 1979 at the commencement of Australian-Indonesian maritime boundary negotiations. During this period, key diplomats and politicians from both sides of Australian politics minimized, ignored, and overlooked human rights abuses in East Timor to advance Australian interests. This approach to East Timor was maintained for over two decades, but had been adapted from an earlier diplomatic blueprint established in the mid-1960s. The main Australian achievement from this approach was accessing East Timor's oil and gas reserves by a 1989 treaty with Jakarta. This was made possible by undermining the legal rights of the East Timorese and tacitly accepting the Indonesian occupation. In this period (1975–1979) around 84,200 Timorese from a pre-invasion population of 600,000–800,000 died as a direct or indirect consequence of the Indonesian invasion. By 1999, as many as 200,000 East Timorese had died since the 1975 invasion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207