Difficult Stories that Haunt: Towards Research Otherwise in Transitional Justice
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
ABSTRACT∞ Stories of suffering, loss and injury encountered in transitional justice research are difficult. They generate affective responses of sadness, guilt, shame and, often, denial of responsibility. Difficult stories are also haunting. They reveal ongoing structural injustices, and in their insistence, challenge claims that the past is over and done with. In this article, we argue that engaging with difficult stories as haunting can propel us towards research otherwise. We first demonstrate how Western modes of research governance silence ghosts through the extraction and translation of difficult stories into data. We consider the possibilities of doing research otherwise when difficult stories refuse, demand return, re-story and claim new ways of seeing, being and doing research. Significantly, in a moment of global reckoning, when the promise of ‘never again’ has become a signifier of ‘ever again,’ the calculus and relevance of scholarship in transitional justice is measured by such ‘ghostly matters.’
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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