MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362229 · doi:10.1139/o74-018

References to the Holocaust in English Law Reports

2016· article· en· W4362229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aron Owen, David R. M. Irving, Robert Faurisson, A.R. Butz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Biochemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe HolocaustGermanHistoryLawClassicsArt historyReligious studiesSociologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few of those who were adults in the 1940s imagined they would live to see the attempts made by some contemporary revisionist historians to falsify or even expunge from the record events which so many have known from personal experi? ence. Such historians seem to fall broadly into two types. The more extreme group is exemplified by David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz and Fred Leuchter, the first of whom was fined ?12,000 in January 1993 by a German court for claiming at a meeting that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz and that the death camp there was built as a fake. They seem to have learned from Hitler the art of the big lie, later exploited and used to devastating effect by his Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels. It was outlined cynically by Hider in Mein Kampf in the following terms: 'The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.' The second category of revisionist historians has been described by Professor Donald Cameron Watt of the London School of Economics as authors of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BiochemistrySame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207