MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919724568 · doi:10.1017/9781780688367.016

Revisiting Challenges to International Humanitarian Law

2019· book-chapter· en· W2919724568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim McCormack

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersentia eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorLawStatutePolitical scienceDelegation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A GLOBAL CONTRIBUTOR It is a special pleasure for me to write in honor of Louise Arbour because she is a person I hold in the highest esteem and whom I am privileged to consider a friend. I first met Louise in 1998 in Canberra. Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Pacific Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and Australian Red Cross had joined forces to organize a roundtable of South East Asian and South Pacific States to discuss the Rome Statute, then recently opened for signature. Louise was the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda at the time, and she had travelled for a full day of her life from The Hague to speak to the gathered representatives. She spoke passionately about the importance of a collective commitment to global justice and of the historical significance of the creation of the world's first permanent international criminal court. And people listened to her as they always do. Few people are imbued with such commanding presence as to “fill” any room they enter. Louise Arbour is exceptional. I was enthralled all those years ago and have been ever since. Louise commands the attention of others and her relatively diminutive height is testament to the irrelevance of physical stature for meritorious contribution in the world. For me, Louise is the quintessential “pocket rocket.” My friendship with Louise was initiated following the Canberra roundtable when she and I joined a group of organizers for a post-roundtable social debrief. I have little if any recollection of the content of our discussions, but I do remember laughing long and loud as we thoroughly enjoyed the conviviality of the evening. It is one thing to share values and philosophical approach to one's profession; it is an additional blessing to experience deep satisfaction in eating, drinking and laughing together. In the 18 years since we first met, I have stayed in touch with Louise principally by catching up whenever we happen to have been in the same place – in The Hague, Ottawa, Geneva, Brussels, Melbourne and most recently in Vancouver.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.027
Scholarly communication0.0200.017
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0100.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntersentia eBooksSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207