Diálogos y casos iberoamericanos sobre derecho internacional penal, derecho internacional humanitario y justicia transicional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este libro es producto de la investigación de diversas inquietudes, de veintidós investigadores de diez países iberoamericanos, en torno a los desarrollos jurisprudenciales y los debates contemporáneos del derecho internacional en materia derecho internacional penal, derecho internacional humanitario, justicia transicional y las necesidades cambiantes de su protección y desarrollo en el contexto de la globalización. Esta investigación se instala en el contexto de una comunidad epistémica que se ha ido consolidando alrededor de las mesas temáticas que anualmente se reúnen en el Congreso Nacional de Derecho Internacional de la Facultad de Jurisprudencia de la Universidad del Rosario que, con el apoyo del Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional, el Anuario Ibe- roamericano de Derecho Internacional Penal, el Instituto Iberoamericano de La Haya, la Red Latinoamericana de Revistas de Derecho Internacional, la Red de Investigación Perspectivas Ibero-Americanas sobre la Justicia y el Colegio de Abogados Rosaristas, se ha consolidado como el epicentro de grandes debates y promotor de investigaciones en favor del desarrollo hemisférico del derecho internacional.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".