MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026267519 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3490

Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law: A Quest for Justice in a Post-Holocaust World by Michael J. Bazyler

2020· article· en· W3026267519 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Irina Samborski

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe HolocaustGenocideRedressLawContext (archaeology)Economic JusticeSociologyTransitional justiceInternational lawPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LAW IS COMMONLY THOUGHT OF as an antidote to genocide rather than its facilitator. In Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law, Professor Michael Bazyler of Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law refutes the notion that the Holocaust was an extralegal event—instead, he isolates the law as the preferred instrument of wholesale murder and destruction. The book traces the long shadow that the Holocaust has cast on the contemporary corpus of international law and many legal systems across the world. While it tells the unfolding catastrophe of the Holocaust as a legal history, the book considers the legal triumphs that followed the catastrophe in their entire context. Specifically, the book explores the legal means that have been used in the last seventy years to redress historical wrongs, obtain justice for victims, and prevent future genocides. These legal means, which Bazyler labels as “Post-Holocaust law,” are shown to have developed in an organized fashion over time to become a discrete body of law. Between masterfully balancing the law’s ability to ruin with its capacity to redress, Bazyler clearly asserts one point: Post-Holocaust law does not yet fit the Post-Holocaust world.

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)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207