Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers in this volume were prepared by the Center on International Cooperation under the auspices of the Project on International Courts and Tribunals (PICT) to provide the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties with independent analyses of critical issues under consideration in the establishment of the Court.Aware that international law is the linchpin of a burgeoning international public sector, and that courts, tribunals, and other dispute settlement bodies have emerged in virtually every area of international activity, in 1996 the Center on International Cooperation (New York University) and the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development-FIELD (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London) launched PICT.The project now operates under the joint auspice of the Center on International Cooperation and the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at University College London.PICT's mission is to address the legal, institutional, policy and financial issues arising from the multiplication of international courts and tribunals and other dispute settlement bodies, as well as from the increased willingness of members of the international community to have recourse to them.PICT addresses legal, institutional and financial issues arising out of
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.334 | 0.306 |
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".