MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808574008 · doi:10.15273/jue.v4i2.8248

Ruptures of War: Shame and Symbolic Violence in Post-Conflict Acholiland

2014· article· en· W2808574008 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David L. Davenport

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Undergraduate Ethnography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorShameDignityLegitimacySociologyGovernment (linguistics)Resistance (ecology)EthnographyThe SymbolicCriminologyGender studiesLawPolitical sciencePsychologyPoliticsPsychoanalysisAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Up until 2006, conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Ugandan government disrupted lives of people living in northern Uganda. The conflict has challenged ethnic identities, particularly that of the Acholi. Moreover, the disruptions of war have challenged the way my Acholi informants define themselves as human beings and members of society. In the following ethnography, I argue that not only have my informants experienced symbolic violence undermining their sense of honor and worthiness at the hands of the Ugandan government and the LRA, but that the shame they feel after the conflict also commits symbolic violence against themselves. The struggle for honor, dignity, worthiness, and legitimacy has been internalized, and they inhabit psychologically both the position of the dominant and the dominated. For my informants, shame is an undermining force that rattles the way they make sense of their world, affirm their identities, and justify their existence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.024
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Undergraduate EthnographySame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207