Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procedural aspects In primitive legal systems such as the international legal system, in which there is no centralised legislative body capable of imposing rules, new norms emerge from the concerted or aggregated actions of states. Each state acts primarily in defence of what it perceives as its own best interests. Thus, a necessary give and take, in the form of immediate reciprocity, is generally present in the creation process of international law. Beyond this general observation, there exist clear variations in the degree to which the evolution of new rules depends on immediate reciprocity. Differences emerge in this respect between human rights and humanitarian law both in treaty and customary law, which are treated distinctly here given their particular modes of evolution. TREATY LAW With regard to treaties, states give their assent to the development of new human rights and humanitarian law norms through multilateral conventions, usually the fruit of compromise reached during preparatory conferences or the work of international organisations. New rules are jointly proposed by the community of nations, relying on a mixture of collegiality and reciprocity. The presence of reciprocity in the process is clearly illustrated by the fact that multilateral conventions concerning both humanitarian law and human rights usually include a clause conditioning entry into force upon ratification by a certain number of states. The requirement is minimal in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, which came into force after only two parties deposited an instrument of ratification (Arts. 58/57/138/153; Art. 95(1), Protocol I; Art. 23, Protocol II).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.033 |
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".