MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120180655

로마법상 uti possidetis 법리의 근대 국제법에서의 원용 :민족자결 원칙과의 경합을 중심으로

2017· article· ko· W3120180655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
洪起源

Bibliographic record

Venue한양법학 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineAdjudicationSecessionPolitical scienceLawContext (archaeology)FrontierInternational lawIndependence (probability theory)Comparative lawGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After showing that the uti possidetis doctrine was originated from the practices of Roman praetors in private law cases, this article continues its legal history approach to trace the doctrine’s deployment in modern international law since the end of the seventeenth century. This survey shows that the application of the doctrine in a number of territorial disputes between countries was promoted in the context of the rise of imperialism at the cost of the right of self-determination of the peoples in colonies. The postbellum independence of the formerly-colonized countries did not succeed either to embed the self-determination principle as one of the judicial tests for settling frontier disputes in international adjudications, including the notorious case of Burkina Faso vs. Republic of Mali (1986). By summarizing the Pros and Cons arguments during the Quebec secession movement (1976-1998), this article suggests that the self-determination principle should be given more attention in international law to such a degree that it may restore its undisputable title and authority in law, private and international.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.313 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한양법학Same topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207