MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033114662 · doi:10.5206/tjr.2015.1.3.4

From the Ground Up

2015· article· en· W2033114662 on OpenAlex
Anna Macdonald

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransitional justice review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCambodian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International Development
KeywordsTransitional justiceCommon groundEconomic JusticePolitical scienceSociologyLawPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the early 1990s, transitional justice has established itself as a field of study and practice. Proponents make normative links between transitional justice processes—for example, criminal trials, truth commissions and reparations—and broader societal and systemic outcomes, such as healing, reconciliation, peace and democracy. There is, however, a paucity of evidence on the actual effects and experiences of transitional justice interventions in war affected and fragile places. This paper uses a bibliographic search methodology to pull together the extant evidence on local experiences of transitional justice interventions and finds that local perceptions and experiences of these processes are complex and do not conform with widely-held normative assertions about what transitional justice “ought” to accomplish. The implications for the transitional justice field are examined and recommendations for future research are proposed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.242 · 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