Ana Isabel Pérez Cepeda (dir.),<i>El principio de Justicia Universal: Fundamentos y límites</i>[<i>The Principle of Universal Justice: Foundations and Limits</i>]Ana Isabel Pérez Cepeda (dir.) and Demelsa Benito Sánchez (ed.),<i>El Principio de Justicia Universal. Una Propuesta de Lege Ferenda</i>[<i>The Principle of Universal Justice. A de Lege Ferenda Proposal</i>]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
These publications by Ana Isabel Pérez Cepeda, Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Salamanca, address the study of universal justice,1 its limitations and possible application by national courts, focusing on Spain. The first book under review, edited by Pérez Cepeda, is a collective study from Spanish academics that analyses the different aspects of universal justice,2 and its development in international criminal law, as well as a comprehensive study of the Spanish experience on this matter.3 Despite the different approaches regarding the application of universal justice, the contributions to this volume subscribe to the premise that there is a general obligation on states to punish those responsible for the perpetration of international crimes, regardless of their nationality or where these crimes took place, and without requiring an effective link between the state carrying out the prosecution and the crime.4 This publication has four parts and a conclusion summing up the main characteristics of a universal justice framework.5 The first part studies the nature and legal foundations of universal justice.6 The second part focuses on its international dimensions,7 while the third part addresses the content and application of universal justice.8 The fourth part studies the challenges regarding its application in Spain.9
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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".