Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reflects on the truth commission experiences of Haiti as a struggle to come to justice in the wake of mass violence and authoritarian oppression in the case of Haiti’s Commission nationale de vérité et de justice (CNVJ), a truth commission first proposed by a Haitian diasporan group in Montréal in 1994, and implemented in the spring of 1995. Modeled after the first deployment of a truth commission institution/genre/performance in Uganda in 1974, the Haitian CNVJ unfolded contemporaneously with the more extensive South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Haitian commission’s mandate was to “globally establish the overall truth of the most serious human rights violations committed between September 29, 1991, and October 14, 1994.” The essay assesses the specific goals and methodology of the commission, its relationship to the judicial system and to the Aristide government in Haiti, and its widely-perceived failure “within an institutional vacuum” as well as in its relation to the U.S. government censorship (redaction) of key sections of the archives on human rights abuses from the period in question. A final and decisive flaw was the “weak publicity and inaccessibility” of the Commission’s work and report. The CNVJ episode is just as pertinent for the explosive problem of impunity and institutional inadequacy in the current post-disaster Haitian environment, and presents a searing example of the obstacles to the institutional life of freedom in the Haitian state. The paper concludes that the strivings for justice in Haiti cannot be delinked from the larger project of freedom.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".