MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1903734989

Child Soldiers: Legal and Military Challenges in Confronting a Global Phenomenon

2005· article· en· W1903734989 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational humanitarian lawAgency (philosophy)Political scienceLawElement (criminal law)DoctrineLegal doctrinePhenomenonInternational lawWar crimeLaw of warHuman rightsCriminologySociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book note re: Children at War by Peter W. Singer (New York: Pantheon, 2005). "Over the last decade, the existence of child soldiers has been brought to light through a barrage of graphic international news agency articles and human rights reports. Usually, these materials only identify sporadic and often sensationalized cases. What has been less forthcoming is a deeper understanding of what P.W. Singer calls the “child-soldier doctrine”: a calculated and pervasive strategy by armed groups to use children as combatants. Children at War is an admirable effort at making this daunting topic accessible to a wider public policy audience, and it provides an interesting non-legal primer on this topic for practitioners of international humanitarian law. However, the book’s insufficient treatment of important legal aspects of the child soldier issue is disappointing given that effective criminal prosecutions are a necessary element to confronting this challenge. In addition, stepped-up prosecutorial activity at the international level has taken place since Singer completed this text, and it also warrants attention."

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207