MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521370972 · doi:10.7202/1068044ar

LE RÔLE DES ACCORDS SPÉCIAUX DANS LA RATIONALISATION DES CONFLITS ARMÉS NON INTERNATIONAUX

2020· article· fr· W2521370972 on OpenAlex
Gérard Aïvo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, on assiste à une multiplication des conflits armés non internationaux. Cependant, le droit est lacunaire, permettant ainsi aux belligérants de violer presque systématiquement le droit international humanitaire (DIH). Les dispositions du DIH offrent la possibilité aux combattants de conclure entre eux des accords spéciaux afin d’appliquer ces règles, en tout ou en partie. En tant que tels, ces accords y revêtent une importance particulière en ce qu’ils permettent de pallier l’insuffisance des règles minimales. À cette fin, la présente étude identifie les caractéristiques et les effets juridiques des accords spéciaux et examine les rôles respectifs des États, les organisations internationales et le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge dans la rationalisation des conflits armés non internationaux.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.259 · 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