MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486549157 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139058377.148

2010 Compromise Proposal ABS-Canada

2011· book-chapter· fr· W2486549157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Barriga, Claus Kreß

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromiseJurisdictionPolitical scienceSubject (documents)LawState (computer science)AggressionCriminologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Declaration (Draft of 9 June 2010 16.00) Based on the Chairman's Conference Room Paper Rev.2 (State referral, proprio motu) 1.Beginning five years after the entry into force of this article for any State Party, the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with articles 13 (a) and (c), subject to the provisions of this article. 4. ( Alternative 2 ) . . . 4 bis The Court may exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression committed by a State Party’s nationals or on its territory in accordance with article 12, unless that State Party has filed a declaration of its non-acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court under paragraph 4 of this Article. 4 ter Such a declaration may be submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations at any time before December 31, 2015 or, in the case of States that ratify or accede to the Rome Statute after that date, upon ratification or accession. This declaration may be withdrawn at any time, in which case the Court, subject to the provisions of paragraph 1, may exercise its jurisdiction in respect of the State concerned.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0170.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.027

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207