MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393659957 · doi:10.46692/9781529232332.003

Creating Inclusive Reconciliation and Reporting Spaces with Children: Valuing Their Stories

2023· other· en· W4393659957 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caitlin Mollica

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) are a widely used mechanism in the transitional justice toolkit today. The purpose and success of TRCs is widely debated within transitional justice scholarship (see Jeffery and Mollica, 2017: 531). Yet there is broad agreement among practitioners and scholars that their emphasis on storytelling provides important opportunities for dialogue within transitional communities, which enables these societies to confront past human rights violations (Quinn, 2010; Philpott, 2015). Participation of children in this dialogue is often ambiguous, inconsistent, highly mediated, and driven by political agendas. As demonstrated throughout this chapter, this ambiguity is evident in how TRCs manage their relationships with children, specifically their obligation to inform on the outcomes of their political participation. Of the 52 TRCs that have occurred since the 1970s, only the reports from Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste, and Canada have been reproduced in forms that children can access and engage with substantively. As such, many TRCs perpetuate marginalizing, apolitical discourses of childhood by excluding children from the political outcomes of reconciliation that their knowledge contributed to through storytelling. Where children are concerned, the value assigned to their stories by transitional justice mechanisms often denotes a politicized agenda, overlooking the empowerment potential for the individual. Through the act of public sharing, storytelling can ‘reconstitute families, communities and relations’ while allowing individuals to ‘find one’s voice in the making of … history’ (Baines and Stewart, 2011: 258). Yet children’s stories have become inextricably tied to broader peace narratives, thus producing a tension between the collective and the individual. This is compounded by the nature of their participation, which requires that their stories are retold and shared through mechanisms that are often inaccessible and disconnected from their reconciliation experiences, particularly during the dissemination phase. Children’s interactions with institutionalized reconciliation practices such as TRCs, therefore, are often static and unresponsive, as the use of their stories as symbols for external political pursuits or the international peace agenda has become normalized. To that end, within the international peace architecture, Children and their lived experiences are often reduced to political resources despite widespread performative political engagement through testimony at TRC hearings and other consultative forums.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207