The Rwandan Diaspora: Residual Politics and the Culture of Silence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article examines the political environment in Rwanda following the 1994 genocide from the perspective of diaspora members. Research was conducted via in-person and telephone interviews from May 2015 to March 2016 with eight members of the Rwandan diaspora in the United States and Canada. The primary research objective questioned how members of this particular diaspora attempt to achieve justice and reconciliation among one another. However, current Rwandan politics became a central discussion point during interviews, particularly the residual effect among the diaspora. Interviews suggest that the current political climate in Rwanda may have created a culture of silence among diaspora members. Members of the diaspora appear to be hesitant to discuss potentially political and divisive topics for fear of retaliation against themselves, their family, and loved ones remaining in Rwanda. Furthermore, interviews suggest that participants believe that the Rwandan government is monitoring the diaspora. This, along with the promotion of a dominant narrative regarding the 1994 genocide, has created a residual political climate in the diaspora that hinders attempts at justice and reconciliation among members.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".