Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 17 October 1961, the municipal police in Paris attacked Algerian demonstrators who were participating in a peaceful protest to show their support for Algeria’s war for independence from France. Thousands of protesters were arrested, and an unknown number were shot and killed, with reports of bodies being thrown into the Seine River. The massacre was brutal, yet important details of the event remain unknown, as reflected by the official state archives’ records about the massacre continuing to be partially unavailable for public access. Various fictional accounts of the Algerian massacre in Paris have emerged as alternative records. How can these alternative records of the massacre, in particular literary texts and other artistic interpretations, help to counteract the power and oppressive forces that exist with the official state archives of the event? Using a variety of sources, including scholarly works, French state archival descriptions, and recent media reports, this paper argues that fictional records of the massacre can contest the power and oppressive forces of the official state archive by existing as alternate sites of memory, by challenging the control and authority of official records, and by contributing towards a journey to archival and social justice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.009 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".