MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197411641 · doi:10.1017/s2071832200020630

From Theory to Practice: Exploring the Relevance of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO)—The Responsibility of the WTO and the UN

2012· article· en· W2197411641 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Law Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Trade Organization Law
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionPolitical scienceInternational lawRelevance (law)Subject (documents)General assemblyCompetition (biology)LawPublic international lawWork (physics)Law and economicsSociologyLibrary scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2002, the United Nations (UN) International Law Commission (ILC) decided to include the subject of the responsibility of international organizations (IOs) in its program of work. By 2011, the Commission adopted sixty-six draft articles with commentaries, known as the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (DARIO). The adoption of the DARIO represents an enterprise of revolutionary implications for public international law and the future development of both international law and global relations and governance. It may leverage the international personality of the IO to a status previously unknown, particularly when compared to the supreme international actor, the State.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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