MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123529269

The Crime of Genocide in the ICTR Jurisprudence

2005· article· en· W3123529269 on OpenAlexaff
Payam Akhavan

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideTribunalJurisprudencePolitical scienceLawCriminologyCrimes against humanityInternational lawSociologyWar crime
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has properly focused on the special intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a group as the distinguishing characteristic of genocide and differentiated it from result-oriented crimes. Although the ICTR has crowned genocide as `the crime of crimes`, it has simultaneously dethroned it by holding that it attracts the same sentence as other humanitarian law violations. Nonetheless, ICTR jurisprudence attaches considerable importance to characterizing the destruction of the Tutsi as genocide as distinct from crimes against humanity. Because the Tutsi cannot be readily distinguished as one of the protected groups under the Genocide Convention, Trial Chambers have gone to great lengths to characterize them as an `ethnic` group in order to justify the label of genocide.

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)0.007
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207