MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7047506769

Hoe te verzoenen? 
\nEen vergelijking tussen de truth and reconciliation commissions van Zuid-Afrika en Canada

2019· other· nl· W7047506769 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUtrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · 2019
Typeother
Languagenl
FieldEngineering
TopicPulsed Power Technology Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)CommissionChristian ministry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In dit artikel zal de Zuid Afrikaanse Truth and Reconciliation Commission (ZATRC) met de Canadese Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CTRC) worden vergeleken. Er zal worden uiteengezet in hoeverre de benadering van de definitie van waarheid invloed heeft gehad op individuele en nationale verzoening en uiteindelijk op dekolonisatie. Enerzijds zal worden onderzocht in hoeverre de CTRC, in vergelijking met de ZATRC, rekening houdt met de denkwijzen en ideeën over waarheid en verzoening van de onderdrukte Aboriginals, anderzijds zal worden onderzocht in hoeverre de CTRC, in vergelijking met de ZATRC, ondanks de victim approached-benadering van de hoorzittingen, de individuele getuigenissen van de Aboriginals in een bredere koloniale context plaatst.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.149 · 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