MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048910883

Children's Participation in Holding International Peacekeepers Accountable for Sex Crimes

2018· article· en· W3048910883 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sonja C. Grover

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPeacekeepingPolitical scienceCriminologyPsychologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the years, there have been hundreds of unresolved allegations and specifically-identified, credible cases of United Nations- ("UN") mandated or otherwise UN-authorized international peacekeepers perpetrating sex-related human rights violations and crimes against children in the country of deployment. In some situations, such as in the Central African Republic, children have been the frequent victims of these alleged sex crimes by international peacekeepers. Arguably, these crimes can rise to the level of Rome Statute-defined international crimes in some instances. 2 This paper discusses the potential for child participation in international judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms directed towards: (i) criminal and/or civil accountability of individual international peacekeepers for sexual exploitation and abuse of children, and (ii) accountability of the troop-sending State where there is a failure of that State to properly investigate and, where warranted, prosecute their peacekeeper nationals responsible for SEA perpetrated while on a UN peacekeeping mission. This paper also highlights the tensions that can arise between (i) the child's right to participate in the pursuit of justice in seeking accountability and a remedy for their SEA victimization by international peacekeepers and (ii) the child's immediate and long-term protection needs.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207