MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160863273

Jen Moore c. el Ministerio del Interior del Peru et al (informe de amicus curiae) (Jen Moore v. Minister of the Interior of Peru et al (Amicus Curiae Brief))

2018· article· en· W3160863273 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charis Kamphuis

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceDerechoPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spanish Abstract: Este informe de amicus curiae expone un analisis de derecho internacional para la consideracion del Juzgado que preside de la demanda de habeas corpus interpuesta en favor de la ciudadana canadiense Jennifer Moore, contra el Ministerio del Interior, la Policia Nacional del Peru, el Departamento de Seguridad del Estado de la PNP del Departamento del Cusco, y la oficina regional de la Superintendencia Nacional de Migraciones. El informe brinda informacion al Juzgado sobre los instrumentos de derecho internacional y de politica que resultan relevantes en relacion con los aspectos de derechos humanos de la demanda en favor de Jennifer Moore. Con el fin de identificar la normativa del derecho internacional de derechos humanos aplicable en este caso, empieza con una revison de los documentos oficiales pertinentes, respecto a las acciones de los Demandados al detener a Moore y prohibirle subsiguientemente su reentrada a Peru. Sobre la base de la informacion examinada, concluimos que las acciones y decisiones de los Demandados violan los derechos de libertad de expresion (articulo 13), libertad de asociacion (articulo 16) y libertad de circulacion (articulo 22), protegidos por la Convencion Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Adicionalmente, senalamos que las razones esgrimidas por los Demandados para la prohibicion impuesta a Moore, en las circunstancias de este caso, tienen el potencial de afectar adversamente los derechos humanos de quienquiera que visite el Peru con visa turistica, y comparta informacion o exprese puntos de vista criticos de la PNP o de las companias mineras extranjeras. Esto pone de relieve la importancia internacional de este caso. English Abstract: This amicus curiae brief offers international law analysis to the Primer Juzgado Penal con Reos Libres in Cuzco Peru in relation to the Court’s consideration of Canadian citizen Jennifer Moore’s habeas corpus claim against the Ministry of the Interior, the Peruvian National Police (PNP), the PNP’s Department of State Security of Cusco, and the Cusco Regional Headquarters of the Superintendent of National Migration. The amicus curiae brief elaborates on the instruments of international law and policy that are relevant to the human rights aspects of Moore’s claim. It begins with a review of the official documents pertaining to the actions of the Defendants to apprehend Moore and subsequently prohibit her from re-entering Peru. On the basis of the information reviewed, we conclude that the actions and decisions of the Defendants violate the rights to free expression (Article 13), free association (Article 16) and free mobility (Article 22) as protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, we note that the Defendants’ rationale for the ban on Moore in the circumstances of this case has the potential to adversely affect the human rights of anyone who visits Peru on a tourist visa and shares information or expresses views that are critical of the PNP or foreign mining companies. This highlights the international importance of this case.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.010

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesFrench-language works237,207