MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2315393020 · doi:10.1177/002070200105600110

Rwanda Revisited

2001· article· en· W2315393020 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Établissements canadiensCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenocideDramaConfusionLawDissenting opinionCommissionConfidentialityPolitical scienceHistorySociologyPsychologyPsychoanalysisLiteratureArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, UN document S/1999/1257, 16 December 1999, 82pp. Online at http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/letters/1999/1257.The flood of books, commentaries, TV documentaries, theses, and commission reports on the Rwanda genocide seems to know no end. Some early superficial or partisan accounts have given way to better informed, if no less tragic, recitals of those terrible events. Nevertheless, such is the controversy and confusion generated by the genocide that blighted Rwanda and shamed the world that great expectations awaited the two 'official' reports under review, anticipating that they would clarify the outstanding issues. The secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan - a central figure in the drama - commissioned the first and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) initiated the second.(f.1) Neither disappoints. While not free of controversy or in total agreement on every point, the two assessments taken together are about as definitive as one can expect at this stage. Their judgments are bound to carry great weight. No one with an interest in the causes, course, complexities, and consequences of the genocide can afford to ignore them. Both reports were partly funded by Canada.The authors of the reports share two distinctions. First, they alone were 'accorded the opportunity to research the confidential records of the UN' (OAU 132; UN 4) and were able to interview a wide range of (largely the same) individuals who were actively involved. Secondly, they were given a genuinely free hand in reaching their own conclusions, and they took full advantage of that independence to write frankly, even brutally.The UN Inquiry comprised a three-man team: a former Swedish prime minister as chair, a former Korean foreign minister with experience as United Nations special representative in Cyprus, and a Nigerian general who had served as field commander of ECOMOG, the West African peacekeeping force, in Liberia and as head of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Jerusalem. The OAU panel consisted of seven 'Eminent Personalities,' two of whom were former heads of state (of Botswana and Mali) and two were illustrious women, one Liberian and the other Swedish. The remaining three were an Algerian ambassador, a retired Indian chief justice, and Stephen Lewis, UNICEF deputy executive secretary and, earlier, one of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's inspired appointments as Canadian ambassador to the United Nations. The senior writer on the project was another Canadian, the indomitable Gerry Caplan.(f.2)The mandates of the two bodies differed in significant respects. The Inquiry was enjoined to establish the facts related to the United Nations role and response in Rwanda and to 'draw relevant conclusions and identify the lessons to be learnt.' The actions of African organizations and governments, as well as outside powers, are, in the main, left to the OAU panel and others to explore (UN 1, 4). Moreover, the period under review covers only nine months - from the launching of UNAMIR, the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda, in October 1993 to the winding down of organized killing following the military conquest of the country by the (Tutsi) Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) in July 1994.The OAU report is considerably more comprehensive in terms of time frame, territorial scope, and range of actors. Its investigations extended to regional as well as Rwandan developments 'surrounding' the genocide over nearly four years, from the Arusha Peace Accords in August 1993 to the overthrow of the Mobutu Sese Seko regime in neighbouring Zaire in May 1997 (p 288). Five introductory chapters set the conflict in context by tracing the roots and evolution of the crisis from colonial times to Arusha, and seven concluding chapters carry the post-genocide story to the end of the decade.The OAU eminences, unlike their UN counterparts, were explicitly enjoined to examine the roles played by the OAU, internal and external forces, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as the UN, 'before, during and after the genocide. …

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,442
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

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

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 Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · 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