MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589663948 · doi:10.1163/15718123-01701006

Sexual and Gender-based Violence in International Criminal Law: A Feminist Assessment of the Bemba Case

2017· article· en· W2589663948 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Alice D’Aoust

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Criminal Law Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawSexual violenceWar crimeVerdictCriminal lawPolitical scienceInternational lawHuman rightsCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In March 2016, the International Criminal Court ( icc ) rendered a guilty verdict against Jean-Pierre Bemba, ex-president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, for his involvement in operations in the Central African Republic from 2002 to 2004. He was found guilty in his capacity as military commander of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The decision is the first by the icc to address sexual violence as a weapon of war and in the context of command responsibility. This article assesses the Bemba decision from a feminist perspective. Key normative developments have occurred in the substantive international criminal law surrounding sexual violence, and the guilty verdict against Jean-Pierre Bemba represents an effective implementation of international criminal law. However, in light of major feminist concerns that arise in international law on sexual violence, the encouraging developments in the judgement occur mostly at the implementation level, leaving much to be done in terms of gender conceptualization and norm-setting.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Criminal Law ReviewSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207