MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399426766 · doi:10.1177/20413866231225083

Doing justice: Moving from the pain and trauma of injustice to healing

2024· article· en· W4399426766 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Bies, Laurie J. Barclay

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Psychology Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjusticeEconomic JusticeSocial injusticePsychological interventionCriminologySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPoliticsLawPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injustice lies at the heart of many societal challenges. By adopting the lens of injustice, we argue that critical insights and interventions can be illuminated. We highlight the importance of healing for addressing the pain and trauma of injustice as well as the role of justice in the healing process, where it can serve as a motivating force (e.g., when people desire justice), healing salve (e.g., when people “do justice”), and desired end state (e.g., working towards a just society). In doing so, we outline how to facilitate healing from injustice and enable the transition from injustice to justice. We provide an agenda for future research that showcases the importance of further understanding the pain and trauma of injustice. We conclude with a call for scholars and practitioners to engage in courageous action to recognize the toll of injustice, promote healing, and work towards a more just society.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.036
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganizational Psychology ReviewSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207