MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206663867 · doi:10.1111/dome.12257

The UN special tribunal for Lebanon (2009–2021): Who cares?

2022· article· en· W4206663867 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigest of Middle East Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East Politics and Society
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalGeopoliticsScholarshipContext (archaeology)Political sciencePoliticsJudgementRelevance (law)Economic JusticeIntervention (counseling)LawHistoryMedicineArchaeologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract More than 15 years after the assassination of Lebanese PM Rafik al‐Hariri, the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) delivered its judgement in the Ayyash et al. Case (STL‐11‐01) in August 2020. Reflecting on earlier critical scholarship on the STL, this essay considers the role of the STL in the regional and global geopolitical architecture, and the domestic context, in terms of justice, politics, economy and society. Despite the devastating impact of the assassination, persistent crises over the past decade and a half, have eroded the importance and relevance of the STL to Lebanon, its citizens, and even regional geopolitics. Within this context, this brief intervention considers who does and does not care about the STL and why it has or has not had the desired impact, socially, geopolitically, legally, and even within academic scholarship.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.239 · 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