MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409994056 · doi:10.1007/s44155-025-00201-9

Reconciliation villages in post-genocide Rwanda, beyond rhetoric to practical reconciliation and psychosocial reintegration

2025· article· en· W4409994056 on OpenAlexaff
Felix Bigabo, Emmanuel Biracyaza, Clémentine Kanazayire, Jeannette Kangabe, Darius Gishoma

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Social Science and Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideRhetoricPsychosocialCriminologyPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyPsychotherapistLawPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 1994 genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda resulted in the tragic loss of over one million lives and severely damaged social fabric of the country. The long-term effects of this massacre are most apparent in the persistent psychosocial challenges affecting multiple generations. In response, Prison Fellowship Rwanda introduced the Action-Based Reconciliation Model (ABRM), which has shown a noticeable impact on reconciliation and psychosocial healing. However, this model has not been extensively investigated. Thus, this study explored the prominence of ABRM in fostering psychosocial recovery and practical reconciliation in Rwanda. This research employed qualitative research design to explore the impact of ABRM on psychosocial healing and reconciliation among genocide survivors and perpetrators living in reconciliation villages and neighbouring communities. Data collection involved 12 focus group discussions, with six groups from reconciliation villages and six from surrounding communities. Discussions were structured to capture experiences, perceptions and interactions of participants. All discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analyses. Genocide survivors reported experiencing depression, hopelessness, resentment, and trauma before moving to reconciliation villages, while the families of perpetrators dealt with fear, shame, guilt, and self-stigma. Both groups indicated that living in reconciliation villages fostered a sense of re-humanization. This shared journey toward healing involved forgiveness and repentance, leading to practical reconciliation, trust, and improved social cohesion. The environment within the villages facilitated collaboration, the restoration of friendships, and positive coexistence. However, communities outside the reconciliation villages reported ongoing wounds among survivors and former prisoners, which impeded social cohesion and trust, particularly in comparison to those within reconciliation villages. While ABRM has noticeably facilitated reconciliation and psychosocial healing, obstacles remain extant such as reluctance of ex-prisoners to openly share their experiences, and persistent psychological distresses linked to limited livelihood resources. Policymakers should continue to support these initiatives and promote international collaboration with organizations and peace-building agencies to exchange knowledge and resources, ensuring the successful implementation of reconciliation actions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover Social Science and HealthSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207