Fiduciaries of Humanity: How International Law Constitutes Authority, by Evan J. Criddle & Evan Fox-Decent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International legal scholars have increasingly noted that there is a fundamental tension within the international legal order. On one hand, international law represents a utopian idea that advances aspirations towards grand, yet equally hollow, goals of “peace,” “justice,” and “human rights.” We see these aspirations embodied in a number of international institutions—the United Nations Security Council strives to maintain “international peace and security” under the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights aspires to establish a “common standard” of human rights “for all peoples and all nations.” The international legal system hence calls on states to work together to advance these shared interests. However, to the extent that the international legal system is able to make inroads towards these ideals, it equally is frustrated by new tensions arising from the interplay of the system’s inherent and emerging qualities, such as states’ pursuit of their individual interests and the increasingly fragmentized nature of decision-making processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".