MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W641731226 · doi:10.5206/tjr.2015.1.3.3

The Kenyan Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission

2015· article· en· W641731226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kimberly Lanegran

Bibliographic record

VenueTransitional justice review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionKenyaEconomic JusticeProcess (computing)Political scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kenya's Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) presented its long-delayed final report to President Uhuru Kenyatta.In four thick volumes, the commission synthesized and interpreted information gathered over the past four years regarding gross human rights violations and historical injustices in Kenya.The Report presents damning indictments of the governments led by each of Kenya's first three presidents, Jomo Kenyatta, the current President's father, Daniel arap Moi, and Mwai Kibaki, finding individuals and organizations in each administration responsible for assassinations, mass human rights violations against groups and political opponents, as well as wide scale corruption and economic crimes.Furthermore, it documents "state sanctioned systematic discrimination" against women and girls. 2 It recommends prosecution of 32 named individuals; an additional 33 people should be banned from holding public office; and government should begin investigations into allegations against a further 229 individuals and 12 1 This paper is based on a paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention in San Diego, CA in 2012.The author

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransitional justice reviewSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207