MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147412936 · doi:10.1177/1057567709335392

Genocide and the Legal Process in Rwanda

2009· article· en· W2147412936 on OpenAlex
Augustine Brannigan, Nicholas A. Jones

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

VenueInternational Criminal Justice Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmnestyImpunityGenocidePolitical scienceLawPoliticsRule of lawCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to the 1994 genocide, Rwandan law provided amnesty for persons who committed serious crimes in the service of the Hutu “Social Revolution” against the Tutsi elites. Murder and other criminal acts undertaken by Hutus who challenged Tutsi political domination were effectively forgiven by amnesty. The law was subsequently repealed during the reconstruction of Rwanda when the judicial system was restructured. This entailed the revitalization of the traditional Gacaca courts due to the enormous number of cases arising from the 1994 massacres. Simultaneously, it spurred constitutional changes to ensure the modernization of the rule of law. This article describes the amnesty law and its role in creating a culture of impunity that led to genocide. It explains how the Gacaca courts arose in the face of massive criminal caseloads and it describes the legal changes that reformed the judiciary and paved the way for constitutional guarantees of legal rights.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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