MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243161936 · doi:10.1017/s0069005800007591

Interpreting Intervention

2002· article· en· W4243161936 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Craig Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSecurity councilIntervention (counseling)Humanitarian interventionReinterpretationLawPolitical scienceAuthorizationDeclarationOrder (exchange)Flexibility (engineering)Public administrationComputer securityPoliticsPsychologyComputer scienceBusinessManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The author considers whether humanitarian intervention can be justified even without express Security Council authorization. Starting with the statement of former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy that Canada intervened in Kosovo knowing that it did not have full legal justification, but feeling that such intervention was nevertheless morally justified, the author explores whether there is an evolving acceptance that explicit Security Council authorization is not necessary. He argues that an evolving reinterpretation of the Charter is appropriate such that, while Security Council authorization remains necessary for humanitarian intervention, there has to be flexibility in determining what constitutes authorization. In this respect, it would be important for a General Assembly declaration on legitimate humanitarian intervention to be in place in order to provide a baseline for interpreting a given Security Council resolution.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.007

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit internationalSame topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207