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
Genocide is a topic that is almost universally ignored by criminology. While it is frequently referred to as “the crime of crimes,” there is virtually no criminological coverage of genocide. The following analysis is a review of existing criminological literature in genocide studies, situating mainstream criminology’s ignorance of genocide in a socio-historical context in order to determine the reason(s) for this disregard. This analysis proposes that the mainstream criminological ignorance of genocide is a calculated and intentional act. Such willful blindness avoids and deflects from disciplinary accountability because of criminology’s historical complacency in genocide. Most of the existing mainstream criminological literature on genocide is criticized because of its hyperfocus on definitional arguments, the redemptive nature of such academic coverage, and the quantification of such atrocities. Thus, an argument for a critical criminological approach to genocide studies is desperately needed for criminology to interpret genocidal acts adequately.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it