Emergence of Studies into Contemporary International Law with Regard to Rules and Principles for Peace-making: From the Perspective of Diachronic Analyses of Diplomatic Negotiations after the World Wars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the rules and principles for post-conflict settlement have been frequently examined in recent years, little research has explicitly examined the phenomenon yielding incentive to the contemporary discussions about these rules and principles among international lawyers. That is, what is the formation process of the shift to the peace-making that occurred after the Second World War? This paper examines one of the facets of this phenomenon from the perspective of tracing diplomatic historical facts through diachronic analyses of diplomatic negotiations in the processes of drafting the Versailles Peace Treaty and the Treaty of Peace with Japan, setting up concepts adopted by persons in charge as the barometers. These analyses find that compared to the Versailles Peace Treaty, which had harsh, punitive, and discriminatory characteristics, the peace-making process of the Treaty of Peace with Japan took on a more generous nature tempered by a rigorousness in the legal aspects of the treaty.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".