MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521601494 · doi:10.15057/28035

欧州評議会のテロ防止関連諸条約における「人権条項」の意義

2016· article· ja· W2521601494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
一成 柳生

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism adopted by the Council of Europe in 1977 “depoliticized” the offences defined in the international treaties on the fight against terrorism, such as the “Hague Convention” and the “Montreal Convention,” in order to facilitate the extradition of offenders between Member States, whereas it also included the “discrimination clause.” Although the clause is intended to protect both the traditional rights of asylum and the human rights protected by the European Convention of Human Rights by means of stipulating grounds for the refusal of requests to extradite, the former aspect of the Treaty attracts the criticism that it leaves room for the requested countries to reject requests, based on political motives, and thereby impairs the effectiveness of the treaty. However, an increasing number of Conventions adopted both in the international and the European sphere include the discrimination clause. This article examines the historical development of the clause and shows that countries have focused more on its role as the safeguard for human rights in human rights treaties than its political aspect.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.014

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.299
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207