MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Ambiguities of Reconciliation and Responsibility in South Africa

2004· article· en· W2047852660 on OpenAlexafffund
Rosemary Nagy

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicForgiveness and Related Behaviors
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasMcGill University
KeywordsAcknowledgementCommissionDenialNarrativeMoral responsibilityReading (process)Balance (ability)SociologyLawResponsibility to protectPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsHuman rightsPhilosophyPsychologyPsychoanalysisLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper traces the ways in which the language of reconciliation promotes and detracts from responsibility. What it means to be responsible and to take responsibility is explored through a reading of J. M. Coetzee's novel, Disgrace. Coetzee provokes a nuanced examination of the nature of reconciliation and responsibility in post-apartheid South Africa, particularly how deep a moral transformation is needed and of whom it should be expected. The tensions between pro forma acknowledgement and deep moral transformation are examined with respect to the competing narratives of reconciliation and responsibility that took place during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and afterwards in South African civil society. The paper concludes with a warning about the delicate balance between responsibility and vilification, reconciliation and denial.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.071
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.289 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical StudiesSame topicForgiveness and Related BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207