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
Although the role of local Human Rights Organizations (HROs) has attracted some attention in the transitional justice literature, this note from the field examines an under-studied HRO strategy: the production and systematization of information. In particular, it focuses on the Center for Legal and Social Studies’ (CELS) efforts to promote accountability for the gross human rights violations committed during Argentina’s last period of military rule (1976–1983). It argues that the production and systematization of information is foundational for transitional justice advocacy, and CELS’ work has influenced Argentina’s transitional justice processes and the broader struggle for accountability. The main focus of the note is the use of information for post-transition legal accountability, the purpose of which is to set judging standards and point out difficulties in prosecuting systematic human rights violations. This is addressed by describing a specific information strategy implemented by CELS. This information deals with the status of trials for past human rights violations ongoing throughout Argentina.
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) | 0.006 | 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 it