MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503225817 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511493874.028

Postscript: Some recent developments

2005· book-chapter· en· W2503225817 on OpenAlexaff
Victor V. Ramraj, Michael Hor, Kent Roach

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantPolitical scienceLawField (mathematics)TerrorismEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anti-terrorism law and policy is a rapidly evolving field, and since the chapters in this book were last revised, between September and November 2004, there have been numerous developments in the various jurisdictions and areas of law covered in this book. We could not, in the late stages of production, provide a comprehensive update of all of these developments, but some of them were sufficiently important and relevant to the chapters in this book as to warrant a brief mention in a postscript. United Kingdom: the House of Lords rules on indefinite detention of non-nationals On 16 December 2004, the House of Lords released its landmark decision in A . v. Secretary of State for the Home Department . The question in this case was whether the provisions in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), which effectively permitted the indefinite detention of non-nationals of the United Kingdom who were suspected of being involved with international terrorism but who could not be deported, since they might be tortured in the receiving country, were inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK had formally derogated from Article 5(1)(f) of the Convention, which permitted the detention of foreign citizens only when ‘action is being taken with a view to deportation’.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1270.051

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207