MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360589990 · doi:10.1163/9789004502758_002

Preface

2000· book-chapter· en· W4360589990 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne F. Bayefsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur FoundationU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conference was convened in order to address the problems of implementation faced by the human rights treaty system.The aim was to consider steps to improve the enforcement of international human rights law and to develop a vision for the advancement of the treaty regime, a goal consistent with the broader imperative and context of U.N. reform.Participants included a wide variety of international human rights actors: members of each of the six treaty bodies, representatives of three U.N. specialized agencies, U.N. officials from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Division for the Advancement of Women, and the Division for Political Affairs, individuals from eight major non-governmental organizations, representatives of states parties, representatives from the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States, representatives of U.N. special procedures mechanisms in the field of human rights and U.N. human rights field missions, and leading international human rights academics.At the conclusion of the Conference, as Rapporteur, I summarized the ideas for constructive change, both short-term and long-term, which emerged from the papers and the discussion at the Conference itself.The dialogue over the three days is summarized in Chapter 26.The range of conclusions and recommendations which emerged from the Conference are set out in Chapter 27.The appendices which have been added provide the reader with a compilation of central documents for the study of the human rights treaty system and the project of reform.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3780.201

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.147 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsFrench-language works237,207