Bibliographic record
Abstract
The decision whether, if ever, to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign state with military force has become a critical issue of the post Cold War era. In 2000 the Canadian government launched the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), which in 2001 published its findings in The Responsibility to Protect. The Commission found broad support for the notion of sovereignty not only as a right, but also a responsibility, the responsibility of a state to provide protection for its people. The primary responsibility for protecting citizens rests with states. But when states are unable or unwilling to provide this protection, or are themselves the perpetrators of atrocities, the Commission argues that the international community has a responsibility temporarily to step in, forcefully if necessary. The Commission resisted the temptation to identify human rights violations falling short of outright killing or ethnic cleansing. This eliminates the possibility of intervening on the basis of systematic oppression of human rights or intervening to remove a military dictatorship. The intention of the report was to provoke debate; to strengthen the role of the United Nations and ensure that such interventions were multilateral and meeting the wider needs of a region and not the interests of major powers. There is an ongoing need to ensure that the Security Council is effective and that resources match the political will. These debates must continue within a UN framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".