Herve Ascensio, Emmanuel Decaux and Alain Pellet (eds), Droit international penal [International Criminal Law]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2012 represented a fruitful year for Francophone academics, students and practitioners practising, or interested, in the field of international criminal law. Alongside recent and deep analysis of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) conducted in French,1 this collective work, directed by three senior professors, provides an essential foundation on core aspects of international criminal law. It is welcome that French academics and practitioners make timely reflections and proposals for improvements within a field of studies where they have an important contribution to make. These contributions allow best practices to be joined together from fundamental legal cultures to form a rich and comprehensive response to what has become a major challenge for the international community: for international criminal law to attain efficiency, coherence and legitimacy. In this book, 90 authors provided inputs to allow for (almost) the whole subject to be covered — including views on transnational criminal law — over the course of 87 chapters. Voices were given in this volume to practitioners in international tribunals and organizations as well as professors from diverse countries. Nevertheless, the French roots within this collection are not lost — half of the authors are associated with universities in Paris. It follows that those readers with French legal backgrounds — the primary audience of this book — will benefit from what remains a conventionally French vision of criminal law and various examples related to French legislation and practice. Inputs made by diverse contributors, however, enhance the vision of this field of studies and allow for a more universal comprehension of international criminal law.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.067 |
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".