Estimates of the Losses of Polish Jews in Hiding, 1942–1945: Revisiting Yehuda Bauer’s Observations
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
The Polish general elections of 2015 brought to power a right-wing, nationalistic party called PiS (Law & Justice). Since then, the nationalists have been busy dismantling the fundamental components of the democratic system, appropriating the entire machinery of the state, and attacking independent judges and journalists. However, their obsession with the defense of the so-called good name of the nation made history one of the most internationally visible areas of confrontation. And Holocaust studies, Holocaust research, and Holocaust education quickly found themselves at the very heart of this struggle over the past. In order to defend the myth of the alleged national innocence during the war, the Polish authorities have become one of the chief agents of Holocaust distortion worldwide. A number of institutions are now involved in a relentless campaign intended to prove that rescuing the Jews during the Shoah was the default position of Polish society. Driven by a phenomenon known as “Holocaust envy,” the official narrative multiplies the ranks of Polish Righteous Among the Nations and strives to present the Polish suffering, and the Polish physical losses, at par with the Jewish ones. The research into the scale of Polish complicity in the Holocaust therefore raises particular ire of the Polish state. Conservative estimates indicate that around 200,000 Jews were either killed or denounced to the Germans by the Poles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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