MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132396860

An Exception to Jesner: Preventing U.S. Corporations and Their Subsidiaries from Avoiding Liability for Harms Caused Abroad

2020· article· en· W3132396860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luke D. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidiaryLiabilityBusinessLaw and economicsAccountingEconomicsFinanceMultinational corporation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the Supreme Court’s rulings in Jesner and Kiobel, the Alien Tort Statute includes a “presumption against extraterritorial application,” and no suits may be brought against foreign corporate defendants. These barriers limit the ability of victims of human rights violations to find justice. The courts or Congress should create an exception to the Alien Tort Statute for foreign corporate subsidiaries of domestic corporations. This exception will help improve American soft power and will hold human rights violators liable for their crimes. This Comment examines the policies of countries like France, England, Canada, and the Netherlands. The exception proposed by this Comment differs from the policies in these countries because it only asks the U.S. to create an exception for foreign corporations owned by American companies. The U.S. should not protect its corporations and grant them immunity when their subsidiaries engage in egregious human rights violations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0170.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207