MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498970365

The Right to Restitution and Compensation in International Law and the Displaced Palestinians

2002· article· en· W1498970365 on OpenAlexaff
S. Michael Lynk

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionCompensation (psychology)Settlement (finance)RefugeeLawPolitical scienceTransitional justiceEconomic JusticeInternational lawUnjust enrichmentValuation (finance)Law and economicsBusinessSociologyPsychologySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In any final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, compensation for the material and moral losses of the Palestinian refugees will be a central feature. The parties have ostensibly agreed that compensation will be paid, but differ significantly on the principles that will determine the global amount of compensation, the valuation of losses, and the method of distribution to the recipients. Compensation for refugees, for victims of human rights violations, and for property loss have become well-grounded features in contemporary international law. The paper argues that these principles from international law should shape the compensation agreement that will settle the conflict, because fairness and transitional justice, rather than unequal bargaining power, will more readily hasten the healing of the many wounds that the Palestinians and Israelis have endured.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.046
Scholarly communication0.0160.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207