MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245649769 · doi:10.1017/9781108596800.011

Ezokola <i>v</i>. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

2020· article· en· W4245649769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Law Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicityLawPolitical scienceAcquiescenceInternational lawRome Statute of the International Criminal CourtSociologyWar crime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treaties — Interpretation — United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Article 1F(a) — Refugee protection status — Whether exclusion from definition of refugee under Article 1F(a) on basis of complicity in international crimes International criminal law — International crimes — Crimes against humanity — Individual criminal liability for complicity — Complicity in international crimes committed by a government — Contribution-based test to complicity — Voluntary, significant and knowing contribution to international crimes committed by a government — Complicity by association or passive acquiescence Sources of international law — Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 — Article 25(3)(d) on common purpose liability — Ad hoc tribunals’ jurisprudence on joint criminal enterprise — Whether these modes of commission of international crimes also capturing complicity by association, rank or passive acquiescence — Nexus requirement between individual’s conduct and group’s criminal activity Relationship of international law and municipal law — Approach taken by other State Parties to concept of complicity — Whether Canadian approach needing rearticulation — Interpretation of Article 1F(a) of United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 excluding complicity by association or passive acquiescence — 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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