MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790351438 · doi:10.3138/gsi.11.2.05

Seldom Asked, Seldom Answered: II(b) or Not II(b)?

2018· article· en· W2790351438 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colin Tatz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmGenocideConventionPsychologyCriminologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Article II(b) of the UN Genocide Convention is rarely applied to a specific case in genocide studies. The Australian Aboriginal experience illustrates Article II(a) physical killing and II(e) child removal well enough. But in the longer term, II(b)—“causing serious bodily or mental harm”—has been the major process in destroying Aboriginal life and culture since the start of the twentieth century. The physical harm is readily detectable, but it is essentially the “serious mental harm” aspect that is examined here.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.028

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207