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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".