MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27074426 · doi:10.29173/alr208

The Legal Adviser in International Organizations: Technician or Guardian?

2009· article· en· W27074426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Treasa Dunworth

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuardianLawAccountabilityPolitical scienceLeagueTechnicianInternational lawPoliticsLegal serviceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The participation of lawyers as legal advisers to international organizations is reviewed from a historical and political perspective, looking primarily at the United Nations and the League of Nations. An inquiry is made into the “accountability debate” of international organizations and the role that legal advisers play in this regard. The issue of whether lawyers act as technicians or guardians in the international arena is reviewed historically both through academic publications, and through the writings of lawyers who have acted as international legal advisers. The 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are analyzed with respect to the advice given to states by their international legal advisers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207