“Are You Preparing for Another War?”: Un/Just War and the Hunger Games Trilogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing from the body of just war theory, this article analyzes Suzanne Collins’s discussion of warfare in the Hunger Games trilogy, tracing the ways in which decisions about war unfold along the lines of the love triangle plot involving Peeta and Gale. Although there are important issues about social injustices driving the trilogy, a fair amount of scholarship has focused on romance in the novel. The more interesting tension in the narrative is not Katniss’s romantic entanglements but the conflict among Peeta’s adherence to the principles of just war, Gale’s disregard of them, and Katniss’s continuing moral dilemmas about them. Arguing that Katniss’s deliberations about war—both joining the rebellion and fighting in the war against the Capitol—are aligned with the foundational principles of just war theory, this essay traces the mandates of jus ad bellum as set out in The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, where Katniss, influenced by both Gale and Peeta, considers rebellion, and then reads in Mockingjay the ways in which the ethical demands of jus in bello lead her to choose Peeta.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".