Bibliographic record
Abstract
The laws of punto final and due obedience violate international law as it stands today. Indeed, such laws breach the right to legal recourse and perpetrate impunity. The United Nations is presently drafting a set of principles to struggle against impunity. This “progressive development” of international law is in reaction to a wave of new atrocities in the last decade. Another, and most recent manifestation of this “progressive development”: in July 1998, a diplomatic conference was held in Rome and has created an International Criminal Court. This initiative, together with the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, has breathed new life into the efforts to combat impunity, and suggests that there is a growing consensus within the international community regarding responsibility for crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations. One important consequence of this evolution is the obligation of all States to bring their domestic law into line with international law. In this respect, they must incorporate into their criminal legislation, crimes such as crimes against humanity, genocide, summary executions, torture and enforced disappearances. States should also remove and nullify, Argentina in this case as exposed by the author, any domestic legislation that interfere with international law in this field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".