Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract German and Japanese crimes committed during World War II became objects of criminal prosecution by Allied courts after the war. The best known of these trials was an international tribunal held at Nuremberg in 1945–1946. By the late spring 1945, Anglo–American predilection for summary execution of the “major” war criminals had yielded to a commitment to prosecute them. The trial at Nuremberg was among the first of numerous proceedings against Nazi war criminals throughout Europe. The Allied powers responded to atrocities in the war’s Asian-Pacific sphere with an array of post-conflict prosecutions. The long shadow of European courts obscures their Asian counterparts. Yet, Australia, Britain, Canada, Communist and Nationalist China, France, India, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, and the United States convened or contributed to hundreds of courts and brought thousands of war criminals to justice between 1945 and 1951. This enormous legal endeavor navigated complex logistical, geopolitical, and cultural obstacles. Despite allegations against both European and Pacific trials of victors’ justice and ex post facto prosecution, the Allies created new bodies of international law that live on today in ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".