A Return to Lockerbie and the Montreal Convention in the Wake of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks: Ramifications of Past Security Council and International Court of Justice Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentration).1. See generally Lockerbie Trial Briefing Site, available at http://www.ltb.org.uk/(last visited March 15, 2002) (a site maintained by the University of Glasgow which provides a number of links related to the Lockerbie bombing as well as news and official documentation regarding the subsequent trial process). See generallyOmer Y. Elagab, The Hague as the Seat of the Lockerbie Trial: Some Constraints, 34 INT'L LAW.289, 298 (2000); Gerald P. McGinley, The IC.J "s Decision in the Lockerbie Cases, 22 GA.J. INT'L & COMP.L. 577 (1992); Vera Gowlland-Debbas, The Relationship Between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case, 88 AM.J. INT'L.L. 643 (1994); Deborah D'Angelo, The "Check" on International Peace and Security Maintenance: The International Court of Justice and Judicial Reeview of Security Council Resolutions, 23 SUFFOLK TRANSNAT'L L. REV.561 (2000); Eric Zubel, The Lockerbie Controversy: Tension Between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council, 5 ANN.SURV.INT'L.& COMP.L. 259 (1999).3. See Convention for the Suppression of Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Sabotage), Sept. 23, 1971, 24 U.S.T.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
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.
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".