MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599545046 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2017.06.12

Hybrid Courts and Multilevel Rules of Law: Some Overall Considerations, Challenges and Opportunities

2017· article· en· W2599545046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Henrik Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawPublic lawMunicipal lawDue processLegal certaintyPolitical scienceRule of lawComparative lawCriminal lawPrivate lawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid courts are the third generation of international criminal bodies. Their hybrid nature makes them distinctive in the international judicial order. They combine domestic and international law; legal infrastructures; personnel at national and international level etc. They are praised in literature for overcoming resource and domestic legal infrastructural challenges and at the same time they stay close to the domestic legal order, and they satisfy the application of international criminal law in the specific cases. In addition, hybrid courts are instrumental in the process of transitional justice towards rule of law based societies. The concept of rule of law is contested. It can vaguely be defined as supremacy of law and it can be approached from various angles. The article claims that rule of law is a moral and/or political maxim with substantive values as it must provide both individuals and the public access to justice; it must provide a degree of equality of the subjects of law; it must provide predictability and legal certainty; it requires transparent procedures and impartial third party dispute mechanisms; and it must ensure the functionality of the legal system. Rule of law is further challenged when it is taken into the statist international sphere and into international criminal law. Where hybrid courts can serve the rule of law, they are also faced with rule of law challenges by governmental interference and by finding a balance between national and international 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.227
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207