MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398183760 · doi:10.7765/9781526174338.00011

‘Caveats were down’

2024· book-chapter· en· W4398183760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Finn

Bibliographic record

VenueManchester University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2002 a Canadian citizen of Syrian origin, Maher Arar, was detained at JFK airport in New York City. Arar was detained in New York for eleven days prior to an extraordinary rendition to Syria via Jordan. In Syria, Arar was subject to physical abuse and torture, and held until October 2003. Following his release, a commission of inquiry was held in Canada. Among other things, this commission documented issues with the Canadian state’s sharing and receiving of material about Arar and his mistreatment and torture in Syria. Via engagement with material from the ‘Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar’ (the Arar Commission) this chapter highlights issues that can arise with the sharing of the Official Record between states. The chapter has three main sections. The first section documents the circumstances that led to the capture of Arar in New York, his treatment in custody in the US, his rendition to, and brief detention in, Jordan and his transfer to and almost year-long detention in Syria. Arar was mistreated while in Jordan, and over a more prolonged period was tortured in Syria. Next, the chapter outlines the main documents placed into the Public Record by the Arar Commission. Finally, the chapter highlights two key issues arising from the sharing of the official records between two different states.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.017

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManchester University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207