Salutogenesis and the Prevention of Social Death: Cross-Cultural Lessons from Genocide-Impacted Rwandans and Indigenous Youth in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining trans-disciplinary theories with cross-cultural ethnographic research, this paper explores community-based approaches to genocide prevention among Canadian-Indigenous groups as well as with Rwandan student genocide survivors. A Salutogenic framework is used to examine community responses to the micro-foundations of genocide (Antonovsky 1987). These processes are explored using first-hand accounts from “New Family” networks of student genocide survivors in Rwanda and members of a Canadian urban-Indigenous “Village.” These perspectives shed light on how locally adaptive, socially networked practices can help promote emergent forms of genocide prevention (Williams 1977). This paper focuses on three areas of local practice that have helped build meaningful community resilience: mutual aid, kinship, and ritual. These features contribute to salutogenic pathways that enhance group life and help communities to circumvent and supplant the day-to-day conditions that Claudia Card describes as social death (Card 2003).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".