MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W272043322 · doi:10.7202/703489ar

Création et compétences du Tribunal pénal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie

2005· article· en· W272043322 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Hajam

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalImpunityJurisdictionGoodwillLawPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeInternational lawHuman rightsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Security Council adopted Resolution 808 on February 22, 1993. This resolution created an international tribunal to judge people presumed responsible for grave breaches of humanitarian law committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The tribunal's status is defined by Resolution 827, whereby its jurisdiction covers all serious violations committed by individuals in the former Yugoslavia. The principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege is fully respected. The tribunal's effectiveness, however, depends on the rulings the judges will hand down and on support from all states. Creating the ICT has been deemed a very important step. By judging criminals, the tribunal not only hopes to introduce the idea of justice into a sphere of international life dominated by power relationships, but also wishes especially to dampen the victors' feeling of impunity. AU of this requires one thing : the goodwill of the states so that this tribunal may carry out its task.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationales→Same topicInternational Law and Human Rights→French-language works237,207→