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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter distinguishes between two concepts of reconciliation that address two kinds of alienation endemic to contexts of civil, interstate, and transnational wars: relational reconciliation, which responds to alienating interactions between agents, and structural reconciliation, which responds to alienating social and political practices and structures that mediate agents’ activities and relations. These two concepts of reconciliation generate different accounts of the purposes of reparations, the agents responsible for reparations, and the forms that reparative measures should take. Reparations schemes in postwar peace settlements should aim not only to reconcile belligerents relationally to each other but also, more fundamentally, to construct a mutually affirmable and affirmed postconflict social/political order. To the extent that contemporary international law limits the duty of reparations to states that are directly responsible for wrongful conduct and excludes disgorgement as an obligation of structural reparation, it remains too focused on the relational versus structural aspects of political reconciliation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it