MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391175956 · doi:10.1093/jnlids/idad032

The legitimation of international adjudication

2024· article· en· W4391175956 on OpenAlexaff
Zuzanna Godzimirska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Dispute Settlement · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
FundersDanmarks Grundforskningsfond
KeywordsLegitimationAdjudicationPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drawing on insights and methods from International Law, International Relations and Linguistics, the article untangles the discursive legitimation efforts of international adjudicative bodies. Adopting a mixed-methods approach that combines supervised learning methods, corpus methods and Critical Discourse Analysis it analyses the language of legitimation in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body over a period of 20 years (1996–2016). In so doing, the article cuts across disciplinary divides and offers a novel and empirically informed perspective to ongoing debates on the discursive legitimation of international adjudicative bodies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Dispute SettlementSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207