MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135550058

Domestic Detention Under Article 78(2) of the ICC Statute

2016· article· en· W3135550058 on OpenAlexaff
Colton Fehr

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatuteLawCriminal courtPolitical scienceRemand (court procedure)SentenceJurisprudenceInterpretation (philosophy)Meaning (existential)Therapeutic jurisprudenceTrial courtCriminologyInternational lawPsychologySupreme courtComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domestic pre-trial custody may be deducted from an offender’s sentence under Article 78(2) of the ICC Statute if the time spent in detention was ‘connected’ to conduct underlying the crime(s) before the Court. In its early sentencing jurisprudence, the Court has concluded that Article 78(2) requires the offender to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conduct forming the basis of a domestic pre-trial detention was the ‘same’ as the conduct before the Court. It is contended that the Court’s interpretation of Article 78(2) is undesirable for two reasons. First, the Court fails to give any meaning to the word ‘connected’ in Article 78(2). Second, the Court presumes that the offender will always be able to access the relevant domestic evidence necessary to prove the purpose of his or her detention. After proposing a legal framework which addresses these criticisms, the article closes by addressing an issue which the International Criminal Court has yet to consider: the complexities of fairly calculating and crediting domestic pre-trial detention towards an offender’s international sentence.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0130.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207