MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415492933 · doi:10.1177/00223433251360200

Introducing the Transitional Justice Evaluation Tools (TJET) database

2025· article· en· W4415492933 on OpenAlexafffund
Geoff Dancy, Oskar Timo Thoms, Phuong Pham, Kathryn Sikkink, Patrick Vinck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Peace Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCambodian History and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGlobal Affairs Canada
KeywordsVettingAmnestyTransitional justiceEconomic JusticeDescriptive statisticsWorkflowDemocracyTable (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The TJET project offers a comprehensive database for exploring the supply of transitional justice (TJ) in every country of the world. TJET provides detailed descriptive information on domestic, foreign, and international prosecutions; truth commissions; reparations policies; vetting policies; amnesty laws and offers; and UN investigations. This article describes TJET’s quantitative dataset, consisting of longitudinal data from 1970 to 2020, with over 400 measures related to the design and operation of TJ mechanisms. Because TJ has become integral to discussions related to democracy and rule of law promotion, as well as peacebuilding, it is necessary that researchers and practitioners use the most comprehensive information possible for grounding their analysis and advocacy. The TJET dataset is unique not only in its global coverage, but also in its custom sampling feature, allowing users to select which types of cases to compare. This article provides descriptive data on TJ attributes, analysis of new trends, and an examination of the temporal relationship between different TJ mechanisms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.008

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Peace ResearchSame topicCambodian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207