MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408940122 · doi:10.5038/1911-9933.18.1.1960

Failing to End Genocide: Structural Factors, Triggers, and Ineffective Responses

2024· article· en· W4408940122 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tutku Ayhan

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies and Prevention · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocidePolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do ongoing genocides persist despite global condemnation? This paper examines the challenge of ending ongoing genocides and argues that the persistence of genocides can be largely attributed to the interaction of structural factors and triggers with inadequate responses at the national, regional, and international levels. The analysis focuses on the genocidal experiences of the Yezidi and Rohingya communities, which were triggered by the 2014 attacks in Sinjar, Iraq, and the 2017 actions in Rakhine State, Myanmar. By viewing genocide as a process rather than an isolated act of violence and recognizing cultural genocide as genocide, this study aims to provide a better understanding of when genocides end and why they persist.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies and PreventionSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207