MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772417890 · doi:10.3138/gsi.11.1.03

Genocide, Revolution, and Starvation under the Khmer Rouge

2017· article· en· W2772417890 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCambodian History and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideIdeologyIndividualismCommunismModernization theoryPolitical scienceLawPolitical economySociologyEnvironmental ethicsPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food access and food production played a number of roles in the Cambodian genocide and revolution. I argue that these roles were driven by two “logics” of destruction. The first, genocidal logic, saw food access used as a weapon to destroy so-called counterrevolutionary “enemies” defined right from the start as permanently outside of and hostile to the revolution. The second, revolutionary logic, was grounded in two key ideological principles: the insistence that observing the “correct line” and proper “revolutionary consciousness” and “action” could overcome all obstacles to collectivization and communist modernization; and the critical, yet impossible, requirement that all members of the new revolutionary community only act from all and for all while eschewing any form of what the Khmer Rouge decried as “individualism.” These rigidly enforced principles gave rise to a negative feedback loop between the Khmer Rouge's unworkable collectivist agricultural policy, policy failure, and an ever-increasing search for enemies supposedly threatening the survival of the Party and the revolution itself.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.312 · 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