Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: With the rise of transnational human rights litigation in North America since the early 1980s and the possible adoption of the ILC Draft Articles on Jurisdictional Immunities, State immunity remains as one of the more controversial issues in contemporary international law. This book review finds The Law of State Immunity by Hazel Fox on time and on point. State immunity is a doctrine of international law aimed at limiting the adjudicative and enforcement jurisdiction of municipal courts in proceedings involving foreign States or their representatives. Hazel Fox’s treatise is a considerable scholarly achievement which, through its thoroughness and lucidity, helps to better understand the complexities of the law of State immunity. French Abstract: Avec l’avenement du contentieux transnational des droits de la personne en Amerique du Nord depuis le debut des annees 1980 et l’adoption eventuelle du projet d’articles de la CDI sur l’immunite juridictionnelle, l’immunite des Etats demeure l’une des questions les plus controversees du droit international contemporain. Cette recension enonce que The Law of State Immunity par Hazel Fox arrive en bon temps. L’immunite des Etats est une doctrine du droit international visant a limiter la competence juridictionnelle et executoire des tribunaux municipaux impliquant des Etats etrangers ou leurs representants. Le traite de Hazel Fox est une reussite academique qui, par sa minutie et sa lucidite, aide a mieux comprendre les complexites du droit de l’immunite des Etats.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.017 |
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".