MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922161208

Naval Chameleons: Re-Evaluating the Legality of Deceptive Lighting Under International Humanitarian Law

2011· article· en· W1922161208 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Madden

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMaritime Security and History
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityLawInternational humanitarian lawPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw and economicsInternational lawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A warship, like a chameleon, can gain a tactical advantage at sea by changing its appearance, and particularly by employing deceptive lighting measures at night. International Humanitarian Law (IHL), however, only permits certain forms of trickery or “ruses” in armed conflicts, while prohibiting more treacherous forms of “perfidy.” In spite of a widespread acceptance of deceptive lighting within naval circles, and a blanket condemnation of the practice from certain academic commentators, this article will demonstrate that deceptive lighting is neither universally permitted nor prohibited under IHL. Naval commanders may require a more nuanced understanding of IHL’s perfidy laws if they are to properly assess the legality of deceptive lighting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMaritime Security and HistoryFrench-language works237,207