Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commemorative rituals are opportunities for civil and political society to contribute to the values of democracy. They also are significant to the process of hegemony. This article compares the processes of civil society in remembering collectively or in forgetting events defined as terrorism in three major train explosions in Bologna, Naples and Madrid. The Bologna case is an example of the perfect memorial. The incident is commemorated on the anniversary day, same time and place of the attack and includes rituals by both government and private groups. The second incident, the explosion of train 904 in Val di Sambro, between Bologna and Naples, represents a case of imperfect oblivion, even if ironically this event is commemorated twice every year. Despite attempts by various groups to organize a more successful on-site ritual as in the case of Bologna, chronic fear of retaliation by the Camorra (the Naples ‘Mafia’) over the years has silenced political and civil institutions. Attempts to memorialize the event are fragmented at best and almost forgotten. The third case, in Madrid, exemplifies a commemoration in the making. Comparison of these three cases shows that the continual remembrance of terrorist victims has helped families to heal. Local and political outrage is expressed - through art, culture, and mass media - against the terrorists from whom the state is unable to defend its citizens. But, when processes of remembering are fragmented, interrupted or silenced, the state prevents citizens from organizing and systematically presenting their ideas, opinions and challenges in a peaceful but effective form, an essential element of a democracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".