MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289823881 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v9n1p65

The Overlap of International Responsibility of Individual and State for Genocide

2016· article· en· W2289823881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hilda Rezaee, Salimi Sadegh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OxfordUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsGenocideState responsibilityCriminal responsibilitySanctionsState (computer science)Punitive damagesAction (physics)Political scienceMoral responsibilityResponsibility to protectLawInternational lawPsychologyCriminologyCriminal law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the overlap ofinternational responsibility of individual and state for genocide. To describe this overlap, the material and psychological elements of genocide are discussed. International criminal law with the distinction between "ordinary state responsibility" and "aggravated state responsibility " drawing the latter offences beyond the State's international responsibility that is mainly focused on the principle of compensation and in which punitive sanctions are not relevant. The result of this change is the establishment of individual criminal responsibility, and aggravated state responsibility. The goal ofthe research is to Explain The Overlap of international responsibility of individual and state for genocide to argue that the two items are not two separate categories and rather, they complete each other. so that responsibility of individual and state for the same action following primarily, individual criminal responsibility and exclusively, Bring theaggravated state responsibility.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207