The Founders: Four Pioneering Individuals Who Launched the First Modern-Era International Criminal Tribunals, Edited by David M. Crane, Leila N. Sadat and Michael P. Scharf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international criminal law experiment has become synonymous with mass atrocities and post-conflict reconstruction since the 1990s. As conflict has continued, so too has the development of international criminal bodies for the prosecution of those most responsible. If the editors of The Founders: Four Pioneering Individuals Who Launched the First Modern-Era International Criminal Tribunals have a project, it is to illustrate the practical challenges and barriers to the formation of this type of justice. Traversing thousands of miles—from the offices of New York bureaucrats to the Kono District of Sierra Leone; from Courtroom 600 in the Palace of Justice to the Killing Fields of Choeung Shek and S-21—the authors outline, in great anecdotal detail, the process of navigating the murky political waters of international justice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".