Bibliographic record
Abstract
The publication of Jan Tomasz Gross's book Sqsiedzi (Neighbors), in Poland in May 2000,1 about the beating, murder and burning in a barn of 1,600 Jewish inhabitants of the town of Jedwabne by their Polish neighbors in July 1941 with additional material on the same crime in neighboring Radzilow set off a wide ranging and often passionate discussion of these dreadful events in the Polish media. It began in November 2000 and continued through July 10, 2001, when the 60th anniversary of the massacre was commemorated at Jedwabne and President Aleksander Kwasniewski apologized for the crime in the name of the Polish nation. At the peak of the press discussion in spring 2001, over a hundred texts were published per month, but this tapered off to almost nothing after July 10.2 There were two main points of view: a passionate denial that Poles could have committed such a dreadful crime, which was attributed to the Germans, and regretful acknowledgement that Poles had done so. Later, a third view emerged: that if Poles were involved, they acted under German duress. It was also in spring 2001 that the English translation of Gross's book appeared in the United States,3 where the crime was generally perceived as the result of traditional Polish anti-Semitism. Some Polish-Americans acknow ledged the crime, while others passionately denied it. A panel on Jedwabne was held at the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America annual meeting in New York, June 2002,where the author of this article presented the wartime background in Poland up to June 22, 1941; Prof. Piotr Wrobel, a specialist in the history of Polish-Jewish relations and holder of the Chair of Polish Studies at the University of Toronto, regretfully acknowledged the Polish role in the crime but critized Gross's methodology (reliance on survivor accounts without confirmation from other sources), and Prof. Antony Polonsky, holder of the Chair of Judaic Studies at Brandeis University,
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".