Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter undertakes the first part of the comparative study in this book, focusing on collective and leadership liability in the common law tradition. First a historical picture is painted of the horizontal approach to legal and political authority in this tradition, and why this tends towards a criminal trial that has lay decision makers and judges whose task it is to act as umpires between two competing versions of the truth. These factors influence the way in which liability has developed as a simplified system, which accessible to those lay juries, and which preferences a just policy outcome in each individual case over systemic consistency. This is one of the reasons why a functionally unitary system has typically emerged in the common law tradition. As a corollary of this, there is a heavy emphasis on subjectivity, or the shared will of those implicated in collective crimes, rather than on the actual contribution made by any individual. Illustrative of this are the comparisons made between the systems of liability in the USA and Canada. In the US, this subjectivity is particulary evident in the unique development of conspiracy as a mode of liability, with far-reaching consequences for extended liability, where a member of a collective commits crimes that go beyond the original agreement. In Canada, no such mode of liability exists, and there is rather a trend to limit extended or constructed liability, due to the notion of ‘fundamental principles of justice’ in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are lessons to be learned from both these jurisdictions in terms of leadership liability for mass atrocity, especially when comparing the policy reasons behind the development of modes of liability.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".