MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972025033 · doi:10.7202/701885ar

Le gouvernement socialiste espagnol et la participation à l’Alliance atlantique depuis novembre 1982 (Note)

2005· article· en· W1972025033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bernard Labatut

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaPolitical scienceLawLaw of the seaCharterInternational lawConventionTerritorial watersFreedom of navigationGeographyPublic international law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations adopted the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) on April 30, 1982 but the saga began in 1967 when Arvid Pardo, the Permanent Representative of Malta to the United Nations, called for a constitution for the oceans of the world and a charter for its sea-bed, its resources, its subsoil and the air above it. The third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III) was convened in 1973 and terminated in the historic vote at New York on April 30, 1982 where 130 nations voted for the Law of the Sea Convention, only four voted against and seventeen abstained. The Law of the Sea Convention is a giant step forward in world and human affairs because it is concerned with sharing the earth's underwater resources amongst the earth's inhabitants rather than on the basis of first come/first served. The Convention controls, protects, shares and develops the oceans for all mankind. Questions of 12 mile limits, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, territorial water rights of transit and innocent passage are also dealt with. Much old law is codified, much new law is created and even for non signatories there is much new customary international law. The Law of the Sea Convention is perhaps the greatest legislative triumph of the United Nations in its 40 year history.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.006

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207