Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contemporary discourse on genocide is dominated by international criminal law, designed to punish individuals after the fact. This article proposes a legal framework derived from Public International Law and the Genocide Convention’s original purpose to prevent genocide. We clarify the conceptual and practical differences between individual criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide and State responsibility for breaches of the Genocide Convention, including distinct standards of proof and indicia of intent. We propose correctives to prevailing errors. We argue for a more appropriate and flexible standard of proof for State breaches of the Genocide Convention. We further outline a novel method for inferring genocidal intent from systematic genocidal acts targeting a protected group, as indicia of genocidal intent. Finally, we urge States to domesticate the duty to prevent in law and policy, offering broad recommendations for the establishment of atrocity prevention institutions to better implement the duty to prevent and responsibility to protect populations at risk of mass atrocities worldwide.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".