Rättvisans roll i sanningskommissioner : En kvalitativ fallstudie om hur rättvisa utövades av sannings- och försoningskommissionen i Kanada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this text the Canadian truth and reconciliation commission is examined based on its relation to restorative and retributive justice. These forms of justice are part of a larger theoretical base, namely that of transitional justice. Using the method of a qualitative case study this text aims to examine two questions; firstly, in what way retributive and restorative justice had a part in the creation of the commission, and secondly, how the commission attempted to create justice in accordance to these two justice principles in its work process and the result thereof. In order to answer these questions, the Canadian truth and reconciliation commission is analysed through books and scientific papers, using Mark R. Amstutz theories on retributive and restorative justice. The result of the analysis shows that the Canadian commission is influenced by both forms of justice. The creation occurred as a consequence of many retributive aspects and a need for restorative justice, whereas the work process and result aimed primarily towards restorative justice, with some retributive aspects present.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".