MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909695609

Undeniably Difficult: Extradition and Genocide Denial Laws

2018· article· en· W2909695609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dylan Fotiadis

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideDenialPolitical scienceLawInternational lawLaw and economicsCriminologySociologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genocide denial, increasingly common in the cyber world, is outlawed in several nations globally in an effort to suppress bigotry and harmful historical revisionism. Genocide denial is legal, however, in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Therefore, a legal conflict arises when a defendant facing genocide denial charges in one nation flees to or resides in a non-prosecuting nation: should respect for free speech or diplomacy prevail? Little material has been written on this matter, but with the rise of the internet as an anonymous means of communication, it is likely that this scenario will be increasingly common in the future. This note proposes that, in order to preserve First Amendment protections of free speech within its borders, but also prevent the United States from becoming a denialist safe harbor, the U.S. immigration system should strictly scrutinize the entry and admission of genocide deniers.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.023
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0120.014
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis)Same topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207