MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388200250 · doi:10.1163/26660229-04101013

Introduction to the Special Issue

2023· article· en· W4388200250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen N. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Australian Year Book of International Law Online · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberspaceTheme (computing)JurisdictionInternational lawPolitical scienceLawIntellectual propertyPopulationNational securityDemocracyHuman rightsSociologyThe InternetPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ASIL'), the Australian New Zealand Society of International Law ('ANZSIL'), the Canadian Council on International Law ('CCIL') and the Japanese Society of International Law ('JSIL').The biannual conferences, which began in 2006, provide an opportunity for emerging scholars to foster a collaborative international network around a common theme.Previous themes have included changing actors in international law,1 global environmental change,2 experts and networks,3 disaster relief,4 globalisation5 and democratic theory and the law.6The theme for the 2022 conference, which was originally to be hosted by the University of California, Berkley School of Law in 2020, but which was postponed to 2022 and held online owing to COVID-19, was 'Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction' .The papers presented at the conference addressed the theme from a range of perspectives: that the oceans, polar regions, outer space and cyberspace are places where international law is evolving and innovating; that evolving technological capabilities and burgeoning human population are pushing the reach of human activities into these spaces and this is demanding a response in multiple legal fields such as environmental, national security, communications, navigation, economic intellectual property, criminal and

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Australian Year Book of International Law OnlineSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207