Preface —Decolonising testimony: on the possibilities and limits of witnessing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testimony: Crises of witnessing in literature, psychoanalysis and history, in 1992, they claimed that the twentieth century was 'the era of the witness'. 2They focused specifically on the Holocaust and the 'crises in witnessing' to emerge in its aftermath.In the past 20 years, witnessing has achieved broad international relevance for truth and reconciliation commissions and national inquiries-notably in contexts in which nations are reckoning with the legacies of a divided past.The late twentieth century and the early twenty-first century have therefore been marked by an unprecedented rise in the production and circulation of and demand for testimony.In contexts such as truth commissions, testimony functions to authenticate claims of historical injustice, it enables survivors to tell their stories, and it potentially engages the public as a collective witness to histories of violence.In 1996, for instance, personal testimonies of traumatic experiences played a formative role in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in the Australian National Inquiry into the Separation of Indigenous Children from their Families and Communities and in the Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.While personal testimony has brought hidden histories of violence and abuse into the public domain, in recent years, commissioners, participants, commentators, psychologists and cultural critics have become concerned with the limits as well as the possibilities of testimony.What are the effects of giving testimony on those who have suffered personally from traumatic events?Does giving testimony, as Rebecca Devitt and
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".