Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The human rights confessional A reconfiguration of the moral order of difference through international law can be clearly seen in the two interrelated ways that the worst abuses of states are recognized and remedied: in state-sponsored apologies and forums of truth and reconciliation. One of the most unusual features of the global rights regime is a moral/legal development in which the act of apology and the truth and reconciliation commission have together become the most significant and legitimate methods by which the collective harm wrought by the state is acknowledged and remedied. Public apologies and truth and reconciliation commissions have become like confessionals for states. As expressed by Desmond Tutu, the state apology becomes an expression of love: “[A]s a nation we are saying, we are sorry, we have opened the wounds of your suffering and sought to cleanse them; this reparation is a balm, an ointment, being poured over the wounds to assist in their healing” Expressing essentially the same point more prosaically, anthropologist R.A. Wilson points out that in South Africa, “national legal discourse did not contain the language with which to undertake its own rehabilitation, and the liminality of the TRCallowed it to plagiarize from a religious idiom.” This suggests something odd about the processes of apology and of truth and reconciliation: there is a widely shared expectation that misguided states, through their personnel, should express deep human feelings of personal regret and desire for absolution. There is no manifestation of genocidal violence or other form of systemic political abuse so severe that it overrides the legitimacy of public contrition inscribed in international law. Their most important feature is that they are public, that the sins of the state are exposed to the light of day. One of the central goals of apology and testimony in these human rights remedies is the conceptual reform or “re-education” of the citizen-bases of those states identified as having committed human rights violations in their recent history. In some circumstances the rights-affirming ideas associated with apology and truth and reconciliation are inconsistent with durable prejudices and propaganda for which the state is being held responsible. This introduces a tension between the judgments and moral content of human rights as expressed in the state’s language of contrition and the misguided ideas once tolerated or cultivated by the state, which may still be held by a significant segment of the citizenry. The central significance of the apology and truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) as human rights remedies lies in the fact that they call upon states to take an active part in the persuasion of its domestic publics, to undertake efforts to bring popular opinion more in line with the moral universals of human rights. Human rights do not just use persuasion as a direct source of shame against the perpetrators of rights violations, but as an active instrument of their rehabilitation.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,022 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,075 | 0,026 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».