Gaining Community Entry with Survivors for Forensic Human Rights and Humanitarian Intervention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As forensic humanitarian and forensic human rights anthropology has continued to evolve, an ongoing concern in the field is meaningful engagement with survivors and the imperative to do no harm. For forensic anthropologists attempting to engage in grassroots forensic intervention, unaffiliated with an international investigation, means for effectively accessing and engaging communities has not been widely discussed. Here, forensic anthropologists draw on multiple, cross-cultural contexts to discuss methods and techniques for introducing forensic partnerships to communities. To do this, the scientist must consider their positionality as well as that of the stakeholders, develop effective local relationships, and consider a community-grounded approach. This paper argues that drawing on broader cultural anthropological training, ultimately informs one's ability to gain entry into at-risk and vulnerable communities while minimizing harm. To illustrate this point, examples are drawn from Canada, Uganda, Cyprus, and Somaliland.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it