MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940627357 · doi:10.5038/1911-9933.13.1.1588

In Defense of Peace: Aron Trainin’s Contributions to International Jurisprudence

2019· article· en· W2940627357 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas Porter

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies and Prevention · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuremberg trialsWar crimeLawTribunalNazismGenocidePolitical scienceCrimes against humanityJurisprudenceInternational lawGermanCriminologySociologyHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Soviet Union played a major role in the establishment of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) that tried Nazi Germany’s leaders for their criminal actions at Nuremberg. Only a handful of Western scholars have noted that the Soviets were early proponents of the use of the legal principle of conspiracy and in establishing the principle that a war of aggression in and of itself could be legally construed as a criminal act. And it was the brilliant Soviet jurist Aron Trainin who forcefully “advanced the idea of individual responsibility for international crimes…the realization of which was established during the course of the Nuremberg deliberations.” The Soviet leadership would consistently call for an international war crimes trial after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. This article looks at Trainin’s remarkable career and especially at the evolution of his legal thought.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.011
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies and PreventionSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207