MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya Arab Jamahiriya v United States of America), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep 114

2016· book-chapter· en· W4235773916 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lydia Davies-Bright, Nigel D. White

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityLawInterpretation (philosophy)Security councilPolitical scienceConventionState (computer science)Economic JusticePosition (finance)International courtInternational lawPoliticsPublic international lawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The case presented the International Court of Justice with the possibility of reviewing the legality, or at least the legal effects, of a Chapter VII resolution of the Security Council in contentious proceedings brought by Libya arising out of its refusal to extradite two Libyan agents suspected by the US and UK of being responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am plane over Lockerbie in Scotland. The case did not reach the merits state but the earlier judicial stages, highlighted in this chapter, suggested that the judicial arm of the UN might have been prepared to review the actions of the executive arm.

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)0.006
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207