MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091503109 · doi:10.1080/15570274.2006.9523235

BEYOND TRUTH COMMISSIONS: INDIGENOUS RECONCILIATION IN UGANDA

2006· article· en· W2091503109 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna R. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review of Faith & International Affairs · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersWorld Bank Group
KeywordsGrassrootsIndigenousForgivenessRestorative justiceRetributive justiceTransitional justicePolitical scienceLawEconomic JusticeSociologyDemocracyState (computer science)Criminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some Western reconciliation mechanisms that have been implemented in non-western contexts have proven unable to repair society because of their cultural foreignness. Reconstruction begins with the process of publicly acknowledging wounds inflicted and endured, then moving to forgiveness. Traditional mechanisms, such as performing reconciliation rituals, appealing to village courts, and organizing dispute resolutions can be more effective in bringing reconciliation by combining retributive, restorative, and reparative justice in keeping with the values of the community. These indigenous mechanisms have more authority at the grassroots level than the Western institutions of international courts and truth commissions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Review of Faith & International AffairsSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207