MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161058243 · doi:10.1017/9781800101562.010

Scholar-Activist? On Relational Accountability and an Ethic of Dissemination

2021· other· en· W3161058243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Thomson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityPolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Your writing is so important to us. It gives us hope. To know that someone who is not a Rwandan understands the country like we do is a gift. You are a true activist because you are not afraid to say what so many Rwandans cannot say – that the RPF has politicized the genocide and our history. Thank you for your work. Please keep writing. We need more foreigners to be a ‘voice of the voiceless’. – Rwandan human rights activist, introducing me at an event in Canada, April 2011 BEFORE I PUBLISHED my first book in 2013, dissident Rwandans living in parts of Europe, Canada, and the United States saw me as a scholar-activist. I was ‘true’ because they thought that my research findings – which critiqued the post-genocide policy of national unity from the perspective of thirty-seven rural poor – overlapped with their political aspirations to unseat the current government. They saw me as an activist because I used my academic platforms to share my findings with non-academic audiences through media interviews, opinion editorials, and from 2010, via social media platforms such as Twitter. While the mantle did not sit well with me, I did not challenge their framing of my scholarship as ‘activist’. Indeed, as a white academic raised and educated in Canada, I did not give my activist standing a second thought, even as I spent time working with Rwandans in the diaspora, helping them write press releases and policy briefs on political issues of importance to them, and later, writing affidavits to support the asylum applications of Rwandans seeking to leave the country. Others considered me an ally because the government had shuttered my research in August 2006, claiming it was against ethnic unity. The Ministry of Local Government officials soon ordered me to participate in a citizenship re-education camp, something I did to protect the identities of the rural people I consulted as part of my project (Thomson 2009a; Thomson 2011). When Rwandans in the diaspora learned about my forced re-education, many expressed dismay upon learning that I had been treated roughly ‘like us [dissenting] locals’, and that I now knew what ‘it felt like to be a target of the government’. I failed to fully appreciate what my experience of being forced to leave Rwanda meant to them, and how this shaped their expectations of me.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.078
Scholarly communication0.0340.041
Open science0.0030.027
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.335 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207