MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2502541280 · doi:10.1057/9780230598300_4

Crimes and Punishment of Prisoners of War

2003· book-chapter· en· W2502541280 on OpenAlexaff
Vasilis Vourkoutiotis

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2003
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawNoticePrisoners of warConventionPolitical sciencePunishment (psychology)Subject (documents)Power (physics)CriminologyWorld War IISociologyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power. Any act of insubordination shall render them liable to the measures prescribed by such laws, regulations, and orders, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter.” 1 Thus began the section of the Geneva Convention which fundamentally defined reality for prisoners of war: they were captives under the legal authority of the Detaining Power. While the Geneva Convention cemented the authority of the Detaining Power, it also served notice, with the second part of the article, that the Detaining Power’s control over the prisoners of war was not absolute, and would be subject to some restrictions. But before the Convention distinguished in detail between two forms of rules to which the prisoners of war were subject, disciplinary and judicial, it laid out some main points regarding the general application of justice toward prisoners of war. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207