MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489704308 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316152546.009

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case

2003· article· en· W2489704308 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionLawSubject-matter jurisdictionOriginal jurisdictionPolitical scienceDeclarationInternational lawPrinciple of legalityInternational courtDutyPublic international law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

189 International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Optional Clause — Statute of the Court, Article 36(2) — Declaration accepting jurisdiction of the Court — Reservations — Right of State making declaration to define scope of acceptance of jurisdiction — Whether reservations to be construed restrictively — Distinction between substantive law and rules governing jurisdiction of the Court — Principles to be applied in interpretation of declaration and reservations — Intention of State making declaration — Principle of good faith International Court of Justice — Procedure — Preliminary objections — Whether objection possessing an exclusively preliminary character — Duty of the Court in dealing with preliminary objections Sea — High seas — Jurisdiction — Fisheries — Conservation measures — Arrest of Spanish vessel by Canada outside Canadian waters — Legality — Whether dispute falling within jurisdiction of International Court of Justice Environment — Maritime environment — Fisheries conservation — Limit of conservation measures — Compatibility with regime of the high seas

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)0.006
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ReportsSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207