MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995319820 · doi:10.1163/187197308x356903

Examining the Utility of Third World Approaches to International Law for International Human Rights Law

2008· article· en· W1995319820 on OpenAlexaff
Opeoluwa Badaru

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Community Law Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPublic international lawInternational lawLawPolitical scienceSubject (documents)International human rights lawContext (archaeology)SociologyLaw and economicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the gradual emergence of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), there arises a necessity to examine its utility as an academic endeavour, particularly within the context of international human rights law. Questions need to be asked as to what benefits – if any – the adoption of TWAIL (either as a method of inquiry or as a subject of inquiry) offers researchers in the field of human rights law. In the same vein, the time is also ripe for scholars to engage with the important question of whether there are some shortcomings that TWAIL needs to address in order for it to be of more benefit to the human rights discourse.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.397
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.008 · 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

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Community Law ReviewSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207