The Quantitative Turn in Transitional Justice Research
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
In recent years, scholars have increasingly turned to quantitative research methods to understand the impact of transitional justice (TJ) on societies emerging from periods of violence and repression. This research often seeks to influence policy diffusion by making bold claims based upon large datasets of TJ events that span space and time. However, the policy advice from the first wave of quantitative research is inconsistent if not contradictory. In this article, we outline a range of methodological issues that help to explain the different conclusions reached by these studies, including sampling strategies, model construction, and the measurement of key variables. Furthermore, these studies have often failed to provide compelling theoretical or empirical bases for a causal relationship between TJ mechanisms and dependent variables such as democracy and human rights. We suggest several ways in which quantitative scholars could produce findings with broader credibility. Although we support the use of quantitative methods to understand the impact of TJ mechanisms, greater methodological care is needed in supporting policy recommendations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it