Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article covers the supervision of the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (1969 Convention). It be- gins by defining treaty supervision and describing key understandings of it in the inter- national refugee law literature. These are then harnessed to create a model of supervision (the Supervisory Model) to frame the ensuing discussion. How the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is supervised is presented within this Supervisory Model, by way of background. The article then moves on to its principal focus, beginning with an overview of the calls for, and claims regarding, supervision of the 1969 Convention. The need for supervision is then established based on two principal elements. First, the 1969 Convention’s incomplete implementation in States parties to the treaty, in both refugee status determination and in relation to rights guaranteed by the instrument. Secondly, existing bodies with quasi-supervisory or supervisory mandates – the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – are not effectively redressing such implementation deficiencies. With the need for supervision established, a new supervisory mechanism is proposed and the procedural options to create it are outlined.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".