Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of legal patchworking (drawing on multiple domestic criminal law notions as a direct source of ICL) is a dynamic process involving judges, practitioner lawyers and scholars. However this patchworkingPatchworking process has rarely taken place with attention to methodology, rather it has been arbitrary, depending upon which participants are most influential in a given forum, and what their preference is for specific domestic systems of liability. What has emerged is a lack of clarity and a clash of legal cultures, undermining both the predictability required for defendants as well as the consistency required for a stable and functioning body of criminal law. In this chapter comparative law tools are offered as a methodMethod, comparative for understanding the process, and for undertaking an analysis of the different domestic modes of liability from which international tribunals draw. A consistent comparative methodComparative method can help temper the arbitrariness and clash of legal cultures. In this chapter the terminology applied throughout the comparative study in Part II is also laid out, including formalism, complicityComplicity , unitary and differentiated systems, objectivityObjectivity and subjectivitySubjectivity , guilt and responsibility.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.038 |
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".