Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempts to publicly address past social abuses and genocide increasingly involve public pedagogical processes that aim to commemorate past victims while fostering sensibilities for building a more just society. Various human rights forums include public trials and truth commissions that are often charged with such pedagogical undertakings. Equally significant are museum projects: the preservation and construction of monuments and sites, along with various artistic memorial practices. The proposed paper explores what it means to utilize and teach this range of commemorative forums and remembrance practices. It will consider memory’s key role in defining community and repairing social significance, as well as institutionalizing human rights in the aftermath of gross violations. The paper will discuss how teaching commemoration necessarily negotiates between conflicting, often competitive group trauma investment and shared experience that remains rooted in present-day potentialities of reconciliation and social justice. Motored by the recent experience of teaching an undergraduate course on collective memory, my analysis will bring into conversation how commemorative practices, human rights, and public pedagogy combine to address past wrongs. Furthermore, contrasting case examples will be invoked to elaborate the contested role of memory, wherein representation and human rights instruction operates differently in a museum and a cinema site: Canadian Museum of Human Rights (CMHR) and Chilean Patricio Guzmán’s, recent cinematic work of memory, Nostalgia for the Light (2010). Finally, the paper will consider the “pedagogical insistence” (Simon, 2002, 2006) that sustains the ethics of teaching and learning of commemorative practice. Building upon Rothberg’s (2009) notion of “multi-directional memory,” I propose an alternative pedagogical intervention: one that moves beyond over-determination of “competitive memory” toward relational engagements across heterogeneous memory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".