Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production and use of datasets is a growing area in transitional justice research. One constant limitation, however, is the way this data is visualized. Relying only on static graphics and tables, many of these datasets are insufficiently explored and analyzed, and remain inaccessible for other researchers. Interactive data visualization tools are an ideal method for overcoming this gap. They are able to adequately present a wide range of quantitative and qualitative data- types, such as geographic, temporal, network, and text data, and their interactive functions allow for a better exploration and understanding of the data. This article examines the visualization needs of transitional justice research, and demonstrates how interactive visualization can facilitate data analysis as well as information sharing. Presenting selected tools for different data types, the article provides hands-on methodological examples for effective handling of transitional justice data using, for example, GIS mapping, Google Motion Charts, and Word Trees.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.166 | 0.063 |
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".