MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231593087 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781316152607.007

Bouzari and Others <i>v.</i> Islamic Republic of Iran

2006· article· en· W4231593087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureLawCustomary international lawInternational lawSovereign immunityPolitical scienceTreatyState immunityHuman rightsPublic international lawState (computer science)Constitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

586 Human rights — Freedom from torture — Nature of prohibition of torture — Whether a rule of jus cogens — Consequences — Remedies for torture — Whether State entitled to claim State immunity when sued for torture — Whether other States required to provide remedy for acts of torture committed outside their territory — Convention against Torture, 1984, Article 14(1) — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Article 14 — Balance to be struck between prohibition of torture and State sovereignty Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Part of Canadian common law — Treaties — Effect in Canadian law of treaty not implemented by legislation — International law principles and values as aid to construction of legislation — Expert evidence on international law — Admissibility — Value State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Exceptions to immunity — Penal proceedings — Commercial activity — Torts occasioning personal or bodily injury — Whether exception to immunity for non-commercial torts extends to torture committed by defendant State in its own territory — Whether there is an exception to immunity for violations of jus cogens — Canada State Immunity Act 1982 Treaties — Interpretation — Relevance of subsequent practice — Convention against Torture, 1984 — Practice of States Parties — Reports to Committee against Torture — Response to declaration by United States of America — The law of Canada

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Law ReportsSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207