MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088229852 · doi:10.5130/portal.v11i1.3293

Words That Can Kill: The Mugesera Speech and the 1994 Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda

2014· article· en· W2088229852 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Narelle Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenuePORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideScrutinyPoliticsPolitical scienceLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most significant extant documents attesting to the dissemination of genocide ideology in Rwanda in the early 1990s is the speech delivered on 22 November 1992 by the political figure Léon Mugesera, a member of the incumbent MRND party. It is particularly significant because it constitutes the earliest example of explicit genocidal discourse expressed by a member of the ruling political party in a public forum, and as such it has often been regarded as offering a ‘blueprint’ for the practical implementation of the genocide. In addition, the contents of the speech have been the subject of intense scrutiny and heated debate within the framework of a judicial process in Canada spanning more than a decade to determine whether Mugesera should be deported to Rwanda to face prosecution for genocide.
 
 The original speech was delivered in Kinyarwanda, the national language of Rwanda, which effectively meant it was largely inaccessible to foreign commentators until it was translated into French and English. This article examines key thematic, lexical and stylistic elements within the original speech as it was heard by its target audience, as well as fundamental issues raised by the Canadian hearings relating to the translation process such as accuracy, fidelity, impartiality and subjectivity which were crucial elements in the decision-making process which finally led to Mugesera being deported to Rwanda on 23 January 2012.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International StudiesSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207