Torture sacrificielle en République Démocratique du Kampuchéa<p>Tortura sacrificial na República Democrática de Kampuchea (Camboja)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Après avoir rappelé quelques éléments clés de l’histoire du génocide perpétré par les Khmers rouges au Cambodge dans la deuxième moitié des années 70, l’auteure montre que cet événement correspond à ce que Hannah Arendt a appelé la banalité du mal. Mais il faut également ajouter à cette thèse le fondement en jouissance de la cruauté de la torture et démontrer qu’on peut en dégager, dans le cas des crimes de masse, une dimension sacrificielle affectant autant les bourrraux que les victimes. ResumoDepois de recorder alguns elementos-chave na história do genocídio perpetrado pelos Khmer rouges no Camboja na segunda metade da década de 1970, a autora mostra que esse evento corresponde ao que Hannah Arendt chamou de banalidade do mal. Mas devemos também adicionar a esta tese a base do gozo da crueldade na tortura e ver que Podemos encontrar, no caso dos crimes em massa, uma dimensão sacrificial que afeta tanto os carrascos quanto as vitimas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".