Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a commonplace that international lawyers differ on whether the right of self-determination of peoples in international law includes a right of secession, and if so, in what circumstances. In the 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec , which put the question squarely to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian government, the Quebec amicus curiae , and intervenors including the Nunavik Inuit, the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution, and the provincial government of Saskatchewan could all find support for their positions among international lawyers. Indeed, the number of new states and self-determination movements to emerge from the end of the Cold War has only broadened the range of views on self-determination, some spying a new norm in these developments and others distinguishing them in various ways. But beyond the fact of disagreement, the cross-section of opinions on secession in the Quebec reference brings home a feature of the international law discourse on self-determination that many international lawyers may register, but few engage: its unhelpful generality. The accounts of self-determination that compete in the literature are so neatly logical and linear as to either miss or generalize away much of what is involved in the actual interpretation of self-determination. One of the few to criticize this body of literature, Nathaniel Berman dismisses its broad dichotomies as inadequate to the complex production of meaning in a concrete case.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.410 | 0.212 |
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".