MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737749617 · doi:10.5539/ass.v13n8p135

The War Crime of Committing Outrages upon Human Dignity and Degrading Treatment

2017· article· en· W2737749617 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Mohebi, Esmaeel Afrasiabi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityImprisonmentCriminologyLawPrisonStatuteSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper seeks to discuss the war crime of committing outrages upon human dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. This crime is defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) of the International Criminal Court Statute. Although the war crimes perpetrated in Camp 9 of Iraq are not limited to outrages upon human dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, this crime was selected to be studied here based on several criteria: first, it was inflicted upon all prisoners; second, it was practiced for the entire period of our imprisonment, i.e. four and a half years; third, it was explicit and obvious; and fourth, all prisoners were victimized by this crime. Humiliating and degrading treatment here refers to a lack of lavatories within the dormitories of the camp which brought about degrading and immoral consequences. Unfortunately, the officers of the Red Cross who frequently visited the camp took no measure to solve the problem.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207