Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developments at the international level over the past five years have re-ignited the relevance of a mechanism that had remained dormant for decades: inter-state communications before UN treaty bodies.Under-utilised and, consequently, under-studied, inter-state communications allow States to bring cases against other States for violations of their human rights obligations.The possibility is available, inter alia, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (icerd), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Optional Protocol 3 to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.The filing of the first ever of such cases in 2018 before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (cerd Committee) (Qatar v Saudi Arabia, Qatar v UAE and Palestine v Israel),1 coupled with other developments at the international level, including proceedings before the International Court of Justice (icj) initiated on an erga omnes partes basis by the Gambia,2 South Africa3 and Canada and the Netherlands,4 and massive third party 1 See: UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'Inter-state communications Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination' <https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cerd/inter-state-communications> accessed 30 April 2024. 2 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) (Pending) icj Press Release 2019/47 <https://www.icj-cij.org/case/178>accessed 30 April 2024.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".