MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982561353 · doi:10.18290/rh.2019.67.1-9en

A Bystander or a (Passive) Witness? A Few Remarks on the Consequences of the Choice of Terminology in Research into the Shoah or the Holocaust

2019· article· en· W2982561353 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRoczniki Humanistyczne · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPolish-Jewish Holocaust Memory Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe HolocaustWitnessTerminologyPerspective (graphical)SociologyBystander effectHistoryEpistemologyMedia studiesAestheticsLinguisticsPsychologySocial psychologyLawPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Polish version of the article was published in Roczniki Humanistyczne vol. 64, issue 1 (2016).
 The article is an attempt at an analysis of the usefulness of the concept of “bystander” that is becoming increasingly popular in social sciences, and in modern studies of the Shoah and the Holocaust. The author points to objective terminological dependencies, but she also takes into consideration the differences in the historical and cultural experience that require different perceptions of the role of witnesses in English language discourse and in the East European, and especially Polish, perspective.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.161 · 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