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 In this article, we consider the memory practices of families whose loved ones were forcibly disappeared during periods of political violence. The families of the disappeared live with an ambiguous loss, often in highly insecure contexts and state denial. Families maintain memory practices to keep loved ones present with them, refuse dehumanizing violence, and fuel hope. Such memory practices come into relation through acts of grief, love, and care for the missing, and constitute what we refer to as affective archives of the disappeared. Affective archives generate new ways of knowing and being in the face of not knowing and the rupture of losing a loved one. We see these practices as entangled in transitional justice (TJ) efforts, compelling states or international actors into action; but they also serve a purpose that exceeds the domain of TJ, offering alternate sites of life as possibility. Of relevance to this Special Issue, the concept of affective archives offers ways of approaching localization not as norm diffusion, empowerment, or local agency, but as pathways to epistemic justice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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