The Trouble with Truth-telling: Preliminary Reflections on Truth and Justice in Post-war Liberia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates perceptions of the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), particularly focusing on understandings of, and the links between, truth, justice, and reconciliation. Forty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted at three research sites in Liberia. Findings indicate that although most Liberians agreed with the TRC in principle, most of those who followed its proceedings saw major problems in its implementation, harming perceptions of reconciliation. Participants expressed concerns that the Commission had failed to discover the full truth of wartime abuses, that the truth that was discovered was not told in the right way, and that there had been problems implementing justice. The data indicates that societies recovering from violence and suffering must think carefully about how to revisit their pasts. In order for a truth commission to have a positive impact, it must ensure that truth is told in a reconciliatory fashion, and that its justice-based strategy enjoys popular support.
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 | 0.064 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".