MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501978084 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139568227.012

The Queen (on the application of Evans) <i>v</i>. Secretary of State for Defence

2013· article· en· W2501978084 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureHuman rightsLawAfghanMemorandumPolitical scienceTerrorism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

508 Human rights — Torture — Inhuman and degrading treatment — United Kingdom operations in Afghanistan — United Kingdom transferring detainees to Afghan authorities — National Directorate of Security detention facilities — Kabul (Department 17), Kandahar and Lashkar Gah — Whether United Kingdom transferees at real risk of torture or serious mistreatment — Whether practice of transfer breaching Secretary of State’s policy — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Relevant principles — Role of court — Standard in international legal instruments — Article 3 of Torture Convention, 1984 — Class case — Whether consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights — Other relevant considerations — Whether proper evidential basis — Independent reports — Allegations of United Kingdom transferees — Canadian material — Safeguards — Afghanistan–United Kingdom Memorandum of Understanding and related assurances — Whether sufficient — Practical operation of transfer arrangements — Access to transferees by United Kingdom personnel — Credibility of allegations — Whether system of specific safeguards insulating United Kingdom transferees altogether from risk of ill-treatment — Whether current United Kingdom practice of transfers unlawful War and armed conflict — United Kingdom operations in Afghanistan — Security and rule of law in Afghanistan — Effectiveness of operations — Law of armed conflict — Power to capture insurgents — Power to detain insurgents temporarily — No power of indefinite internment — United Kingdom policy — Suspected insurgents detained by United Kingdom armed forces transferred to Afghan authorities for questioning and prosecution — Whether all transferees at real risk of torture or serious mistreatment — Safeguards — Nature and effectiveness — Afghanistan–United Kingdom Memorandum of Understanding and related assurances — Practical operation of transfer arrangements — United Kingdom assessment of no real risk of torture or mistreatment — Whether current practice of transfers unlawful States — Sovereignty — Afghanistan — United Nations Security Council Resolutions — International community pledging to support and ensure respect for Afghan sovereignty — Afghanistan having jurisdiction over all persons in territory unless expressly agreed otherwise — Entitlement of Afghan Government to 509 prosecute those in jurisdiction committing offences under Afghan law — Security and rule of law in Afghanistan — Afghanistan having overall responsibility — Afghan Constitution and Penal Code prohibiting all acts of torture and inhuman punishment — Whether United Kingdom practice of transferring detainees to Afghan authorities unlawful — The law of England

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ReportsSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207