Legal Protection of Rohingya Citizens Related to The Conflict in Myanmar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many crimes against humanity cases that occurred in the world. One of them is happened in Myanmar, which is Rohingya ethnic conflict. Rohingya ethnic conflict is an issue based on discrimination to Rohingya ethnic because there are some differences at ethnic and religion. Ethnic Rohingya is not recognized by Myanmar and not granted a status of citizenship Based on Myanmar Citizenship Law (Burma Citizenship Law 1982). This research was conducted to find out how the legal forms to Rohingya citizens based on international law. This methodology is a normative legal research that uses statutes, case, fact approaches. The research found that the role of UNHCR in handling Rohingya cases has been mandated by the United Nations and in accordance with UNHCR Statute. UNHCR plays an important role in addressing the issue of Rohingya case, at leas as initiator, facilitator, conciliator, and determination. Such roles were taken to resolve the conflict that face by Rohingya ethnic, like provide protection, safety, and facilitate every Rohingyas refugees needs. In addition to the role of UNHCR, some countries such as Indonesia, Thailand and Canada also provided some arrangement in addressing the issue of Rohingya.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".