MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237207441

Libya, Intervention and Responsibility: The Dawn of a New Era

2014· article· en· W2237207441 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Kofi Abiew, Noemi Gal‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResponsibility to protectHumanitarian interventionIntervention (counseling)Security councilPolitical scienceLawDutyNorm (philosophy)Resolution (logic)Use of forceInternational lawHuman rightsHuman securityPoliticsComputer sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC) Resolution 1973 of 17 March 2011, which authorized the use of military force, coalition forces began air strikes against Libya to implement the no-fly zone. Carried out by NATO, the resolution was subsequently interpreted as also mandating the removal of Gadhafi. The paper examines two questions fundamental to the United Nations’ trajectory for the 21st century: Does Resolution 1973 (2011) represent a classic case of humanitarian intervention? Or, does the resolution represent – as some pundits have been arguing - the first ever demonstration of the decade long ‘emerging’ norm of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? Did the resolution indeed trigger the international legal duty to protect civilians under threat to their ‘human security’? And if so, can we expect similar UN resolutions and missions in the future? We argue that while a case could be made for this case-study as an instance of the legal validity of humanitarian intervention, its legal precedent-setting nature in terms of R2P is doubtful.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.062
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207