Documents of Humanitarian Law and Support of Family in the Situation of Armed Conflicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At current era, international humanitarian law has much importance and different dimensions while before the establishment of the United Nations Organization; merely bill conventions considered this issue. But after the formation of the United Nations Organization, Geneva rights were formed in 1949. Humanitarian law has different dimensions like family discussions that have been reflected in numerous documents of humanitarian law. For example, in quadruple Geneva conventions and two additional protocols, the cases from this view for exerting some humane supports of families can be considered. Even in some cases, according to the competence of the international penal court, some crimes against women and children have been criminalized, and massive criminal guarantees have been ordained for dealing with them. Therefore, in this article about the necessity and importance of the support of a family dynasty as the central core of human societies, numerous documents of humanitarian law have been studied and analyzed for supporting this important social element. Also, this result was obtained that in armed conflicts such as domestic or international, protection of a relation between the family members and special support of women, physically challenged persons and children in the first degree are considered as supportive priorities in Geneva conventions and supportive documents of humanitarian law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".