MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965329860 · doi:10.1163/170873811x567961

Domestic Adjudication of Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Armed Conflict: Considerations for Prosecutors and Judges

2011· article· en· W1965329860 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evelyn W. Kamau

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationCrimes against humanityGenocideWar crimeLawSexual violenceInternational lawCriminologyPolitical scienceCommissionDomestic violencePsychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The increased domestication of international core crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has placed national prosecutors and judges on unfamiliar ground. Specifically, though very welcome, the recognition of acts of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) as constituting core international crimes poses a further challenge. The circumstances surrounding the commission of SGBV as international core crimes, coupled with their unique elements and manner of proof, makes their domestic prosecution seem that much more difficult. An understanding of how acts of SGBV constitute international core crimes, their constituent elements and the manner of proving them, coupled with how to treat victims and witnesses of SGBV, goes a long way in easing the perceived challenge of domestically prosecuting them. This article is geared towards achieving that and is directed at people who are involved in or are considering carrying out domestic prosecutions and adjudications of SGBV as international core crimes.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.013
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207