Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quest to address the legacy of mass violence is a politically complex endeavor that does not necessarily foreground the needs or desires of victims. Indeed, victim claims may contradict the motives of those in power or become overshadowed by the drive to establish international legal norms and regimes of justice. The international push for a tribunal to hold accountable those responsible for the deaths of some 1.7 million Cambodians from 1975-79 did not begin until after the fall of the Soviet Union. Until that time, Cold War politics shielded the former Khmer Rouge from prosecution; indeed a reconfigured Khmer Rouge coalition claimed Cambodia's place at the United Nations even after the Vietnamese drove the brutal regime from power in 1979. Co-Prime Ministers Prince Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen wrote to the UN in 1997 requesting the creation of a tribunal -some claim to intimidate remaining Khmers Rouge into defecting to the current government -but changed his position soon afterward. Nonetheless, international pressure for a court continued and, after a series of lengthy negotiations, the Cambodian government and United Nations reached an agreement in 2003 to establish the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), more commonly known as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal (KRT).
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".