MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110744594 · doi:10.17161/ajp.1808.9685

How Just War Theory May Survive Without the Supreme Emergency Exemption

2009· article· en· W2110744594 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nathan Colander

Bibliographic record

VenueAuslegung a Journal of Philosophy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsDoctrineAdversaryLawJust war theorySupreme courtPolitical scienceSpanish Civil WarLaw and economicsSociologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the human cost of war is inevitably great, the West has traditionally articulated, defended, and at least nominally practiced a theory of fighting just wars. Unfortunately, this laudable theory is liable to attack because of the widely recognized doctrine of the 'supreme emergency exemption' (SEE). This doctrine states that a nation at war may directly target the civilian population of an enemy nation in an emergency situation, even though such use of force is forbidden by the other rules of just war theory. As a result, just war theory (JWT) appears to offer paradoxical advice, for it says both that civilians may never be targeted, and also that civilians may be targeted in certain circumstances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAuslegung a Journal of PhilosophySame topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207