The Role of the International Judiciary in Protecting the Holy Places
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The protection of the sacred places that constitute the spiritual values of peoples is no less important than the protection of the physical entity of man, because of the attachment of these sanctities as a cultural and civilized entity. There is no doubt that the continuous and significant increase in the violation of the holy sites calls for the need to consider the legal protection of these holy places as an urgent necessity to preserve them. Attacks on holy sites represent a real threat to international peace and security, through the effects of the encroachment or threat to these holy sites, which leads to significant damage caused by armed conflicts, whether internal, regional or international. The legal basis for the protection of the holy places is closely linked to the development of the civilized thought of the international community. What is being reported today in the international community about violence and its escalation is related to the violation of the sacred places that affect the conscience and conscience at its core. The international community should therefore recognize that the more it plays its part properly, the sooner these violations will be put in place the less likely there will be an escalation of violence.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
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".