Buried Words: a forum on sexuality, violence and Holocaust testimonies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Forum is a discussion among six contributors deeply familiar with the challenges of analyzing survivor testimony, each with a distinct methodological approach to the topic of sexual violence and the Holocaust. Topics addressed in the discussion include the challenges posed by studying survivor testimonies to learn about sexual violence, the theme of silence and how scholars can mitigate the role they play in reinforcing it, how gender as a category of analysis intersects with other approaches, considerations related to age and memory, and the role of the audience in shaping how survivors communicate their experiences. The Forum discussion grew out of a scholarly conference held in Toronto in October 2018, titled Buried Words: A Workshop on Sexuality, Violence and Holocaust Testimonies. The workshop was organized by the Azrieli Foundation’s Holocaust Survivor Memoirs Program and was inspired by its publication of several memoirs detailing experiences of sexual abuse and violence and other sexual encounters during the Holocaust, including Buried Words: The Diary of Molly Applebaum. This Forum features several of the participating scholars in conversation, addressing important questions that arose during the workshop.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it