MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792541941 · doi:10.3138/gsi.11.2.06

The Faithful Do Not Yield: Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Camps

2018· article· en· W2792541941 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sabrina Chang, Peter Suedfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRacial and Ethnic Identity Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsThe HolocaustNazismJudaismMemoirWitnessCoping (psychology)PsychosocialHolocaust survivorsNazi GermanyPsychologyLawMedicineHistoryPsychiatryPolitical sciencePoliticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jehovah's Witnesses in countries under Nazi rule refused to participate in war-related activities in any way. Consequently, unless they abjured their religion, they were subject to severe penalties. Between 6,700 and 7,000 were sent to concentration camps. In contrast to Jewish Holocaust survivors, not much research has been conducted on this group. The present study used thematic content analysis to assess patterns of universal values, coping strategies, and resolutions of psychosocial crises as these were manifested in the memoirs and interviews of 62 Jehovah's Witness survivors of the camps, and compared those with the counterpart results of interviews with 58 Jewish survivors recorded in 1946. The results show differences tentatively attributable to the relative status of the Witnesses and Jews in Nazi ideology and in the lifestyles and religious beliefs of the two groups. Further research, with larger sample sizes, is needed for definitive conclusions to be drawn.

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)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchFrench-language works237,207