MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Doctrine of the Margin of Appreciation in the Legal Practice of International Courts

2009· article· en· W4237111724 on OpenAlexaff
О. С. Орехов

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modern system of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has united 47 States: from Azerbaijan to Switzerland, from San Marino to Russia. These countries have remarkably different historical and cultural backgrounds as well legal systems.According to the Doctrine when there is a conflict of interests between the society and a personal freedom it is up to the state to determine which of them shall have the priority. However, this freedom is subject to international control exercised by the Court. Despite being widely used by the Court the Doctrine is often criticized for undermining the consistency of the Convention. The present article analyses the arguments pro and con the use of the Doctrine. Concluding for its appropriateness the article also advocates that the Doctrine provides the flexibility that the Convention needs to be able to unify a great diversity of member states.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicWater Resources and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207