MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W181039817 · doi:10.29173/alr212

The International Criminal Court: A Failure of International Justice for Victims?

2009· article· en· W181039817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kelisiana Thynne

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilestoneLawCriminal courtPolitical scienceInternational justiceInternational courtEconomic JusticeContext (archaeology)CriminologyInternational lawCriminal justiceSociologyPublic international lawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Criminal Court marked its tenth anniversary in 2008. In conjunction with that milestone, this article considers the status of international justice in the context of victims’ rights in the Court’s proceedings. The author presents a case study of the Thomas Lubanga Dyilo case and, in doing so, explores the reasons why the Court might already be failing to provide international justice for victims of international crimes. The article specifically discusses the rights of victims of gender-based crimes and the intersection between victims and justice in the Court. The author also offers suggestions of how the Court can better achieve international justice for victims as it moves forward with its first cases.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207