Elusive retributive justice in post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia: Challenges of using ECCC Victim Information Forms as a victim participatory rights mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the procedural challenges of using the Victim Information Forms (VIFs) to analyze survivors' experiences with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), commonly known as the Khmer Rouge Tribunal. The paper takes a systematic public/medical sociology approach to examining the VIF as a participatory rights mechanism for victims wishing to pursue justice for themselves and their loved ones who experienced the Khmer Rouge atrocities, torture, forced relocation, starvation, forced labor, rape, robbery, and other physical and psychological torment, firsthand. It provides the first comparative, critical analysis of both the original VIF and the revised form issued midway through the submission period; both forms appear as appendices to the paper. Conclusions are drawn and suggestions made by the researcher based on the firsthand collection and submission of the largest group of VIFs from any single source around the world (outside of Cambodia itself), as well as on support work with victims/survivors during the ECCC proceedings in Phnom Penh, Cambodia in 2013.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".