Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal interpretation takes place in the field of pain and death." 1 Women's pain and death blurs the distinction between war and peace.Women are disproportionately starved, attacked physically, emotionally and psychologically, and killed during both war and peace.This paper focuses on the sanctions imposed against Iraq by the United Nations Security Council ("Security Council") in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the on-going purported threat posed to international peace and security by the Iraqi regime.2 Intended as a humane alternative to war, the sanctions have nonetheless lead to such high levels of death and suffering, particularly among women and children, that commentators have labeled them "genocide,"3 a "medieval military siege,"4 and "a humanitarian disaster comparable to the worst catastrophes of the past decades."5 Not surprisingly, critics of the Security Council have turned a plethora of human rights and humanitarian instruments against the sanctions regime.However, both the Security Council and its critics employ a fragmented definition of "security" that focuses on political leaders and military choices and assumes that security and human rights must be traded off against each other.Consequently, neither side of the debate concerning the sanctions regime fully explores whether "security" can be achieved through, as opposed to limited by, an emphasis on human rights.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".