MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“Do You Know Who You Are?” Radical Existential Doubt and Scientific Certainty in the Search for the Kidnapped Children of the Disappeared in Argentina

2009· article· en· W1997135139 on OpenAlexaff
Ari Gandsman

Bibliographic record

VenueEthos · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRace, Genetics, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)CertaintyPoliticsExistentialismDictatorshipEmbodied cognitionSociologyEthnographyLawPessimismPolitical scienceCriminologyEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyAestheticsAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the Argentine military dictatorship (1976–83) up to 30,000 people disappeared. Included among them were an estimated 500 children who were handed over to families related (or with close ties) to security forces. The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo formed to discover their fate. During the 1980s, the Grandmothers used newly available genetic technologies as a means of verifying the identities of potential grandchildren to reunite them with their biological families. In the 1990s, custody was no longer an issue because the children were legally adults. Forced to change their strategy, they embarked on public campaigns directing those with “doubts about their identity” to contact the organization. This article provides an ethnographic analysis of these public campaigns to advance theoretical perspectives on the nature of embodied truth and the transformation of individual concerns regarding personal identity to collective doubt regarding national identity and belonging. [identity, human rights, genetics, history, politics, memory]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthosSame topicRace, Genetics, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207