Politicization of genocide: the case of Bucha
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis was to analyze the political statements and parliamentary debates of the following 7 countries of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Ireland, and Canada concerning the alleged genocidal practices that took place in Bucha, Ukraine after the full-scale invasion by the Russian armed forces in February 2022. For this, the creation of the legal norm of genocide and the historical usage of genocide by governments and/or political entities were examined to identify potential limitations and shortcomings in the 1948 Genocide Convention that could have affected legal responses to historical cases of alleged genocidal practices and the current Bucha case. In other words, in what way has the defining of genocide gone beyond its legal perimeters? Although the statements made by the national parliaments about the Bucha atrocities are political assessments, politicians are the ones who decide whether to join cases seeking justice for international crimes. This is the reason these are important in the Bucha case – the political statements and parliamentary debates serve as a tool to convince the audience about intent in alleged genocidal practices. This is because intent must be inferred from the circumstances and these circumstances do not include only conflict-based criteria.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".