The Collectivisation of Victim Participation: The Case of Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes and analyses political debates related to the creation of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) in Colombia.Drawing on a on a critical sociopolitical and sociolegal perspective, it analyses transitional justice as a field in which different social and institutional actors with diverse levels of power and interests struggle to persuade or impose their meanings on justice, victims' rights and peace.In consequence, the analy sis about the JEP should comprehend the context, the discursive construc tions, and the political disputes that frame it.The article is based on archival research that included academic references, institutional reports, news media information and other documents on the matter.The first part of the article presents an account of the sociopolitical context that made possible designing the JEP.Subsequently, it describes the main political and legal disputes to transform the JEP.The article finally provides an analysis that highlights the contradiction between a selective retributivist approach, mainly sustained by those who have opposed the Peace Agree ment, and a holistic perspective, led by those who have supported the advantages of a negotiated peace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".