MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206807132 · doi:10.5038/1911-9933.15.3.1876

Arts & Literature: A Review of the Poetry Book unBuried-unMarked—The unTold Namibian Story of the Genocide of 1904–1908: Pieces and Pains of the Struggle for Justice

2021· review· en· W4206807132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elise Pape

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies and Prevention · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicGerman Colonialism and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocidePoetryGermanEconomic JusticeSilenceCompassionColonialismLiteratureHistoryThe HolocaustSociologyLawArtAestheticsPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1904 and 1908, about eighty per cent of the Herero and fifty per cent of the Nama perished in what is today known as the first genocide of the twentieth century that took place in today’s Namibia under German colonial rule. Over decades, the German government has not officially recognized the genocide as such. Jephta U. Nguherimo is one of the descendants of survivors of this genocide and today lives in the United States. In his poetry book unBuried-unMarked–The unTold Namibian story of the Genocide of 1904-1908: Pieces and Pains of the Struggle for Justice that he has self-published in 2019, J. Nguherimo gives insights into long-lasting impacts of the Herero and Nama genocide, into ways of dealing with painful memories, and into processes of healing in post-genocidal contexts. This art review gives an overview of the book and discusses main features of this artistic piece: the way the poems are linked to pictures, the use of different languages, the presence of nature or the importance of intergenerational bonds. It reflects on the author’s leitmotiv: dialogue, empathy and compassion, and on the impact these could have had or could have on negotiations between Germany and Namibia on the recognition and reparation of the genocide.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies and PreventionSame topicGerman Colonialism and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207