The Public Face of Injustice: Tuareg Insurgency and Human Rights Activism in the Central Sahara
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the contradiction between two strategies toward regional autonomy by Tuaregs in the central Sahara. Tuareg representatives have been active participants in African peoples’ involvement in indigenous human rights forums starting in the mid-1990s. At the same time, the occupation of northern Mali in 2012 and 2013 by a loose coalition of Tuareg groups pursuing regional autonomy through the Mouvement National pour la Liberation de l’Azawad (MNLA), whose efforts were associated with elements of Al-Qaida au Maghreb Islamique (AQMI), presented to the world a very different strategy toward recognition of rights and regional autonomy, one readily associated with violence, strident intolerance, and, with the pillaging of the famous libraries of Timbuktu, with wanton destruction of world heritage. This situation raises a number of questions: How is the implementation of human rights possible where those rights have little, or inconsistent, currency among the potential rights claimants? Further to this, how, in morally complex struggles for justice, are some states able to exploit the apathy of publics in ways that systematically, and at times egregiously, violate international justice standards?
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".