MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1517752269

Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda

2014· article· en· W1517752269 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia C. Murphy

Notice bibliographique

RevueMilitary review · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenocideHumanityEthnic groupCrimes against humanityLawPolitical scienceCriminologySociologyWar crimeInternational law
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda Romeo A. Dallaire and Brent Beardsley, Carroll & Graf, New York, 2004, 584 pages, $32.99 Atrocious crimes against humanity in Rwanda began in 1993 when organized groups of the ethnic Hutu majority embarked upon a campaign of genocide against the ethnic Tutsi minority. This was done at a time when relatively few U.N. forces were on site to intervene in the subsequent massacres. In spite of his insistence that military reinforcements were necessary to prevent and stop the brutal killings, Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, commander-designate of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), did not receive any additional resources to assist his small number of troops in protecting the Tutsi victims. As a result, the local government that perpetrated the mass killings was unopposed by any organized defensive force or by international military forces. The result was the murder of over 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Following his tour in Rwanda and retirement from the Canadian armed forces, Dallaire documented his experience and provided readers with an intimate tale recounting the time he spent in Rwanda during the attempted genocide of the Tutsi ethnic minority. His story begins with the invitation for him to accept command of UNAMIR, continues with an explanation of the U.N's lack of preparation for the mission, and focuses on his direct observations of the mass atrocities as they unfolded. In his account, Dallaire provides an elaborate and thorough explanation of the emotions and justification behind his decisions. He lists his actions and the associated motivation behind them. What is particularly interesting is his insight into the actions he opted not to take. He explains in detail the potential outcomes that may have resulted had he made different choices such as attempting to stop the Rwandan military forces as they were arming to commit genocidal acts. The story serves as an incredible tale from the most powerful representative of the U.N. and Western society who personally witnessed repeated, vicious violations of human rights during the Rwandan genocide. One of Dallaire's prominent themes is that powerful nations must decide whether they will waive the justification for intervention based on national interests, and instead become involved in foreign affairs based on humanitarian concerns. He provides insight into the severe complications that arise for world leaders as they must consider the consequences of their decisions. A passionate human rights advocate and critic of the U.N. as well as U.S. policy toward Rwanda during the unfolding events, Samantha Powers, wrote the foreword for this book. Although her accounts of the U.N. and U.S. failure to intervene are strongly supported with facts, her argument that they failed in their duty to intervene does not consider other perspectives and the associated rationale behind the actions of all parties which were involved. Moreover, her sympathetic approach to Dallaires story is one-sided and she does not acknowledge other conditions that may have influenced the international community's decision not to intervene. In contrast, journalist Gil Courtemanche opines that fault for the outcome lies in part with Dallaire who, he asserts, was too methodical and did not possess adequate initiative and critical thinking required of an effective UNAMIR commander. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,008
Communication savante0,0040,005
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,269
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMilitary reviewMême sujetGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsTravaux en français237 207