Dificultades Jurídicas y Políticas para la Ratificación o Implementación del Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional: Ecuador (Legal and Political Challenges for the Ratification or Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Ecuador)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: Este ensayo es parte de una publicacion conjunta que analiza las dificultades relativas a la ratificacion e implementacion del Estatuto de Roma en America Latina. No obstante que Ecuador ratifico el Estatuto antes de su entrada en vigor el 1 de julio de 2002, la tipificacion de los crimenes internacionales solamente se completo en Febrero de 2014, con la promulgacion del nuevo Codigo Penal Integral.Este articulo analiza el marco constitucional, recomendando enmiendas a la normativa penal, tanto en el marco de lo establecido en el Estatuto de Roma como en otros tratados internacionales de Derechos Humanos.English Abstract: This essay is part of a publication that analyzes the challenges regarding the implementation or ratification of the Rome Statute in Latin America. Despite the fact that Ecuador ratified the Statute before its entry into force on _July 1, 2002, the implementation of international crimes within its national legislation was only fulfilled in February 2014, with the entry into force of a new Criminal Code.The essay analyzes the Constitutional framework, recommending amendments to its Criminal Code, not only vis-a-vis the Rome Statute but also with other International Human Rights Conventions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".