MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504038432 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316152645.004

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration <i>v</i>. Mugesera and Others (League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and Others Intervening)

2008· article· en· W2504038432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncitementLawGenocideHatredPolitical scienceTribunalCriminal lawInternational lawCrimes against humanityHuman rightsDeportationImmigration lawCriminologySociologyImmigrationWar crime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

271 Aliens — Expulsion — Whether speech given by respondent in Rwanda before granted permanent residency in Canada constituting incitement to murder, genocide or hatred, or crime against humanity — Deportation under Immigration Act 1985 International criminal law — Incitement to crime of genocide — Definition — Whether incitement to genocide having no requirement of proof of genocide — Crimes against humanity — Definition — Speech inciting hatred — Definition Relationship of international law and municipal law — Interpretation and application of provisions of Canadian Criminal Code in accordance with customary law and Canada’s treaty obligations — Relevant sources of international law and recent jurisprudence including International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda — Whether Canadian case law inconsistent with international criminal tribunals on crimes against humanity — Canadian case law overruled to the extent of inconsistency — The law of Canada

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)0.001
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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.015

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ReportsSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207