MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986359236 · doi:10.3138/gsi.13.1.06

The Long Genocide in Upper Mesopotamia: Minority Population Destruction amidst Nation-Building and “International Security”

2019· article· en· W2986359236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hannibal Travis

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideMesopotamiaAncient historyPopulationTurkishHistoryThe RepublicPolitical scienceLawSociologyDemographyTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Genocide in Kurdistan” most often refers to events that are recognized as having occurred in Iraq during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Scholars also connect it with events in Turkey’s early years as a republic. This article describes how some scholars’ expansive conception of Kurdistan encompasses regions that also witnessed genocides as large as or larger (in quantitative terms) than these two cases. Armenians, Assyrians, Yezidis, Mandaeans, Shi’i Arabs, and Greek Orthodox Christians witnessed extermination campaigns at various points in Ottoman, Persian, Iraqi, and Turkish history. What is remarkable about Upper Mesopotamia is that these genocides may have reduced native populations in absolute numbers, as compared with ancient or early medieval figures, and to a greater extent than after the genocides of the Kurds or other groups. Like the work of Raphael Lemkin, this article’s analysis will not be limited to the period since the Genocide Convention entered into force. Instead, it presents evidence of continuities between the denationalization strategies, official pretexts, and regions mentioned in histories of the various genocides in Upper Mesopotamia.

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)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.425
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 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207