MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995254254 · doi:10.7202/1026915ar

Procureur c. X : les enseignements à tirer de la poursuite des enfants soldats pour crimes contre l’humanité

2014· article· fr· W1995254254 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Luc Akakpo

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peut-on tenir pénalement responsables les enfants soldats auteurs de crimes internationaux ? La question mérite d’être posée dans la mesure où bien que le droit international pénal ait mis en place des mécanismes pour poursuivre, condamner et punir ceux qui se rendent coupables de violations du droit international, ces mécanismes ne sauraient être appliqués sans distinction d’âge. C’est cette problématique de la poursuite et de la condamnation des enfants soldats qui constitue la trame de fond de cet article. L’auteur y aborde la question sous le prisme d’une décision de justice, Procureur c. X, rendue en 2002 par l’une des chambres spéciales pour les crimes graves commis au Timor-Leste (ou Timor-Oriental). L’auteur soutient que cette affaire représente un recul inquiétant pour le droit international, car l’enfant ne bénéficie d’aucune mesure conçue explicitement pour lui devant ce tribunal international « hybride », bien que l’élaboration d’une justice pénale juvénile soit un acquis en droit interne.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0100.006
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droitSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207