MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740411796 · doi:10.15678/znuek.2017.0962.0206

Etyka międzynarodowa a odpowiedzialność za ochronę

2017· article· en· W2740411796 on OpenAlex
Danuta Kabat‐Rudnicka

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKrakow Review of Economics and Management/Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreBoston College
KeywordsResponsibility to protectInstitutionPolitical scienceInternational communityInternational lawLawSociologyPublic administrationPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines a new institution of international law that has taken shape since the beginning of the 21st century: the responsibility to protect. This responsibility is interpreted in the light of theories of international relations and international ethics. In the article, analytical and descriptive research methods have been applied. While the relatively new institution of the responsibility to protect has, due to its importance, gained fairly widespread acceptance in the international community, it has also been criticised as too difficult to implement. Nevertheless, it deserves our attention as the most radical programme legitimising actions taken under the auspices of the United Nations to protect the civilian population when it is facing threat.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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