MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995596741 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340041

Ethiopia-Eritrea Rapproachment

2019· article· en· W2995596741 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph Magnet

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPersecutionDeclarationPolitical scienceLandlocked countryIndigenousLawTortureInternational lawHuman securityGeographyDevelopment economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On July 9, 2018 Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a Joint Declaration of Peace and Friendship. On July 17, 2018 Ethiopia announced plans for landlocked Ethiopia to use Eritrea’s port of Assab. Ethiopia’s proposed use of Assab has implications for the indigenous Afar people who have lived in the port area for two thousand years. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights in Eritrea and the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that Eritrea engaged in widespread persecution of the Afar people, including evicting them from the port area of Assab without any compensation. Both UN entities found that this persecution amounted to crimes against humanity. This paper considers the legal consequences for Ethiopia and Ethiopian officials if they use the Assab port area taken from the Afar by criminal means: will they be involving themselves in Eritrea’s crimes? The paper then considers alternative arrangements from the perspective of where the interests of Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Afar are anticipated to converge. It concludes with proposals to resolve the present untenable situation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.015

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207