MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268520519

Terrorism, the Non-State Actor, and the Dictum of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in its 2011 Interlocutory Decision

2012· article· en· W2268520519 on OpenAlexaff
Noemi Gal‐Or

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrorismInterlocutoryTribunalLawPolitical scienceDoctrineState (computer science)Jus ad bellumInternational humanitarian lawHomicideInternational lawUse of forceAppealPoison controlSuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The latest authoritative pronouncement in matters regarding terrorism, purporting to determine a legal doctrine on international terrorism, was recently handed down by the Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in its Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, and Cumulative Charging of 17 February 2011. The commentary examines whether and to what extent the decision has carved out a new general legal definition of terrorism that also captures the international legal status of the non-state actor. It concludes that whilst indeterminate in addressing the transnational element of terrorism and incomplete regarding the distinction of terrorism in peace versus war times, it is precisely the gaps left open that offer an opportunity to further concretise the legal conceptualisation of terrorism. Consequently it represents a welcome step towards thwarting the threat of terrorism.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0180.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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