Governing memory: Justice, reconciliation and outreach at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how devolved outreach work for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia works to govern the past as it acts to reshape and reframe potentially ambivalent and conflicting memories of political violence. The article specifically examines an example of outreach targeting a former Khmer Rouge community that has been situated as a key party in Cambodia’s attempts to realize ‘justice’ and ‘reconciliation’. The article analyses the sites and crucibles of memory that outreach work for the court utilizes in licensing a particular reading of Cambodia’s experiences of war and genocide. First, the article shows how museum and memorial sites and technologies produce acquiescent, ambivalent and resistant effects among outreach subjects. Second, the article then considers the consolidation and contestation of memory at a public forum event, noting the ways in which outreach attempts to disarm and reconstitute memorial accounts that conflict with the officially sanctioned reading of Cambodia’s past political violence. Whilst acknowledging the unique characteristics of the case, I argue that it is illustrative of the various ways in which Cambodians might question the legitimacy of the Extraordinary Chambers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".