MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156082066

Legal Tragedies: US Military Reporting on Civilian Casualties of Airstrikes

2021· article· en· W3156082066 on OpenAlexaff
Christiane Wilke

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyRegretLawPolitical scienceTragedy (event)International humanitarian lawCriminologySociologyInternational lawSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do US military investigations of airstrikes that resulted in civilian casualties make sense of the violence under scrutiny? This essay argues that the investigations are extensions of the violence they review. Drawing on literatures on law, race, technologies, and visualities, the essay shows ways in which civilians who are recognized in other reports remain unseen or unrecognized in US military investigations. Analyzing the reports, the essay argues that the investigations reveal a use of IHL: the reports assert and presume compliance with IHL, but they do not use IHL as a legal standard. This decorative use of international law paves the way for a standardized language of “regret” and “tragedy” that refuses responsibility for the deaths of civilians.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207