MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117257113 · doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20250804.22

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Unanswered Questions

2025· article· en· W7117257113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mykhaylo Krasnyanskyy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Law and Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistory, Medicine, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionWitnessDistrustConfusionShot (pellet)ScapegoatGeorge (robot)Quarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article analyzes the reasons and facts that caused distrust in the results of the investigation into the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy by the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission and the FBI's leadership at the time were fixated on the "single (magical) bullet theory" and the "lone shooter theory" (it was only Lee Harvey Oswald, who fired from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building), which ultimately resulted in a notable decrease in the quality of the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination. Although 21 witnesses stated that they heard shots fired from the direction of the grassy knoll, the Warren Commission refused to take that into account. However, analysis of the footage from the Zapruder witness film clearly showed that at least one shot at the president was not fired from the window of the Book Depository, i.e., it could not have been fired by Oswald. There was also an unacceptable confusion regarding the entry and exit holes of the bullets in President Kennedy's body. The issue of disproportionate and unauthorized control and interference by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in the work of the Warren Commission is discussed. The article features many important photographs taken at the crime scene, as well as a number of declassified FBI documents.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Law and SocietySame topicHistory, Medicine, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207