Home Truths about Truth Commission Processes: How Victim-Centred Truth and Perpetrator-Focused Adversarial Processes Mutually Challenge Assumptions of Justice and Truth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how current court procedures are subject to three distinct but related challenges to discovering truth. One, there may be no objective reality to be known or, at the very least, there is no decision-maker who could decide when it has become known. Two, if we see objective reality as an agglutination or processing of subjective truths, too many perspectives are lost, silenced or otherwise inaccessible. And three, at least some important aspects of a given truth are impossible to communicate – they may not be spoken or cannot be heard. In addressing at least some of these challenges, court reformers might wish to consider how the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools has devised processes that are different from both adversarial and inquisitorial proceedings in Canadian and foreign courts and administrative tribunals and that tend to support the truth-seeking function by enabling the testimony of vulnerable witnesses.
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 | 0.050 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".