Male rape and sexual crimes in International Criminal Law jurisprudence: a critical appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente trabajo ha intentado analizar crímenes sexuales y especialmente el crimen de violación masculina. La jurisprudencia internacional de los Tribunales penales internacionales y la Corte Penal Internacional ha tratado de calificar la violación como un crimen de genocidio en forma de graves lesiones físicas y corporales, aunque no necesariamente permanente (letra. B) art. 6 del Estatuto de Roma; o como un crimen contra la humanidad cuando existen elementos de contexto y, sobre todo, elementos materiales que surgen de las definiciones dadas por los Tribunales especiales y los elementos de los crímenes; o incluso como un crimen de guerra en caso de que se implemente como parte de un plan o diseño político, o como parte de una serie de crímenes similares cometidos a gran escala. Debido a la falta de tratamiento de un delito “particular” y difícil de probar o testificar ante un tribunal internacional. La indicación del nivel de gravedad del delito es necesaria para la relevancia de la violencia sexual y la violación como crímenes de lesa humanidad que veremos en los próximos años desde el panorama del derecho penal.
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 | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".