MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385989378 · doi:10.3138/gsi-2023-0008

Impunity, Lack of Humanitarian Intervention, and International Apathy: The Blockade of the Lachin Corridor in Historical Perspective

2023· article· en· W4385989378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bedross Der Matossian

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies International · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpunityGenocideHumanitarian interventionPolitical scienceIntervention (counseling)ApathyAmnestyResponsibility to protectLawInternational communityCriminologyDevelopment economicsInternational lawHuman rightsSociologyPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article will analyze the existential threat facing by the Armenians of the beleaguered Republic of Artsakh in the context of three phases of mass violence inflicted on Armenians in the modern period: the Hamidian Massacres of 1894–1896, the Adana Massacres of 1909, and the Armenian Genocide (1915–1923). Despite the teleological differences of these phases, there seems to be three key common denominators connecting all of them together: impunity, lack of humanitarian intervention, and international apathy. After dwelling on the history of impunity, the absence of humanitarian intervention, and international apathy, this article will concentrate on the disastrous repercussions of the closing of the Lachin Corridor and the ensuing humanitarian crisis in the fragile Republic of Artsakh. This article will argue that the three important factors that led to disastrous repercussions for the Armenians in the past are present today, thereby raising the red flag for potential ethnic cleansing.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies InternationalSame topicEurasian Exchange NetworksFrench-language works237,207