MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392501533 · doi:10.1080/09546553.2024.2311677

Living in Yesterday’s Terror: The Impact of Civil War Violence on the Post-War Election in South Korea

2024· article· en· W4392501533 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTerrorism and Political Violence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYesterdaySpanish Civil WarPolitical sciencePolitical violenceCriminologyPoliticsLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To what extent does civil war violence affect voting behaviour after the war? Evidence from South Korea after the Korean War suggests that the voter’s support or denunciation of civil war violence perpetrators on election day depends on how well the perpetrator controls the context of violence after the war. Using an original precinct-level dataset of the occurrence of civil war violence and the results of the 1950–1954 general elections in South Korea, I find that civil war violence performed by the dominating perpetrator, the South Korean government, had little effect on their vote shares, while violence performed by the opposition had a significant effect on increasing the dominating perpetrator’s vote shares. By antagonising and repressing the victims of their violence as the enemy of the nation, the South Korean government empowered the victims of opposition violence while silencing those victimised by them during the war. It was only after the collapse of the Rhee regime in April 1960 that the civil war violence victims of the South Korean government could mobilise for emancipation.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.306 · 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