MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378802466 · doi:10.3138/gsi-2021-0012

The Genocide Convention and Presidential Priorities, 1948–1988

2023· article· en· W4378802466 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bailey D. Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRatificationConventionPresidential systemPolitical scienceLawLegislatureGenocideHarmPublic administrationPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 1948 to 1988, the United States failed to ratify and implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention). In total, seven presidential administrations neglected to expend the necessary political capital to secure the Genocide Convention's passage. This article is the first comprehensive study of the presidential actions—and, more aptly, inactions—on the long road to ratification. Ultimately, of the seven presidents who failed to procure the Convention's ratification by the Senate, only three even sought the Senate's advice and consent on the important international accord, and in all cases, the presidents did so while working to ensure the act did not harm their broader legislative and foreign policy agendas. Ultimately, President Ronald Reagan oversaw the Convention's ratification, though he did so in response to the threat of a public relations disaster that his administration believed the ratification would help avert. Studying the motivations of these eight presidents deepens our understanding of why it took the United States 40 years to finally adopt the Genocide Convention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207