MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264797461

Miscarriages of Justice in the War Against Terrorism

2005· article· en· W2264797461 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Roach, Gary T. Trotter

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawTerrorismImmigration lawImmigrationMilitary justicePolitical scienceMisconductContext (archaeology)Criminal justiceEconomic JusticeCriminal lawCriminologySociologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first part of this paper examines the history of wrongful convictions in terrorism cases with an emphasis on the Irish cases of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven and Judith Ward. Various causes of wrongful convictions are examined including police misconduct, false confessions, ethnic stereotyping and lack of disclosure. The second part of the paper argues that miscarriages of justice that result in long term detention of the innocent in the post September 11 environment may be more likely to occur under immigration and military laws that offer far less procedural protections for detainees than the criminal law. Indeterminate detention under British immigration law, security certificates under Canadian immigration law and the rules for determining enemy combatant status under American military law are critically examined with an emphasis on the dangers of detaining the innocent. The third part of the paper concludes that a focus on wrongful criminal convictions is an inadequate approach to the problem of miscarriages of justice in the context of the contemporary war against terrorism. It proposes a definition of miscarriages of justice that stresses the risk of detaining those who are innocent under even the expanded liability rules of immigration and military law.

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)0.002
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207