MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

T<scp>he</scp> A<scp>mbiguous</scp> R<scp>ole of</scp> R<scp>eligion in the</scp> S<scp>outh</scp> A<scp>frican</scp> T<scp>ruth and</scp> R<scp>econciliation</scp> C<scp>ommission</scp>

2006· article· en· W2033321867 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeace &amp Change · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth African History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooSt. Jerome's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmnestyDemocracyPoliticsEconomic JusticePolitical scienceLawSociologyTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the ambiguous role that religion, particularly Christianity, played in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and in South Africa's transition from apartheid to democracy. On the one hand, religious‐symbolic discourse was an empowered truth‐telling discourse used by victims and survivors in recounting their stories of apartheid abuse. Moreover, it was a discourse publicly affirmed and encouraged by TRC leaders such as Desmond Tutu. On the other hand, religious discourse was prohibited for perpetrators who came forward seeking amnesty; for amnesty applicants, only a legal‐forensic mode of truth‐telling was authorized by commissioners. We argue that this tension between religious and legal discourse in the TRC has contributed to the establishment of a democratic political culture in South Africa; yet, at the same time, it has also contributed to delays in social and economic justice for victims and survivors.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0130.004
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.232 · 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