MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923250212 · doi:10.1163/9789004393622

The Hague Yearbook of International Law

2016· article· en· W2923250212 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsMontreal Council on Foreign Relations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYearbookLawPolitical scienceLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the Hague Yearbook of International Law is to offer a platform for review of new developments in the field of international law. In addition, it devotes attention to developments in the international law institutions based in the international City of Peace and Justice, The Hague. As of the 2010 Volume, the Yearbook has been compiled by a new and expanded Editorial Board, offering fresh ideas and a new approach. A newly established Advisory Board has also been added, including leading judges, practitioners and scholars. Sections have been created on public international law, private international law, international investment law and international criminal law, containing in-depth articles on current issues. The breadth of the Yearbook’s content thus offers an interesting and valuable illustration of the dynamic developments in the various sub-areas of international law.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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