MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405516417 · doi:10.1093/jcsl/krae014

Taking stock after a quarter of a century

2024· article· en· W4405516417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric P.J. Myjer, Nigel D. White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Conflict and Security Law · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Stock (firearms)LawPolitical scienceHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the close of 2024, the Journal of Conflict & Security Law (JCSL) will have been published by Oxford University Press (OUP) for 25 years. In its first incarnation in 1996, the JCSL appeared as the Journal of Armed Conflict Law and was published by Nottingham University Press; however, in its second and continuing incarnation after 1999, it was incorporated by OUP. This twenty-fifth anniversary year seems a suitable opportunity to take stock of how the journal—and the world around it—has evolved; and this seems especially appropriate as we, the co-editors-in-chief (and founders), will take our leave at the end of December. Twenty-five years into the 21st century is surely an opportune moment to reflect on how conflict and security law has developed during this period of great turmoil in international relations, and to consider how the JCSL has served as a sounding board, discussion forum and guide. Conflict and Security Law is of course a broad area of international law that touches on many different but interconnected fields of law, from collective security law to the law of armed conflict/humanitarian law (IHL/LOAC) and arms control law, as well as the law as it relates to developments in weapons technology and new methods of warfare like cyber. The ambitious breadth of this area is reflected in the original description of what the JCSL is about: The journal covers the whole spectrum of international law relating to armed conflict from the pre-conflict stage when the issues included those of arms control, disarmament and conflict prevention, through to the outbreak of armed conflict and discussions of the legality of resort to force (jus ad bellum) to the coverage of the conduct of military operations and the protection of non-combatants by international humanitarian law (jus in bello). Treatment is also given to the conflict resolution stage where the legal issues concern peace agreements, post-conflict rebuilding (jus post bellum), territory, compensation and disarmament. Collective security mechanisms such as peacekeeping are potentially applicable throughout.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0290.018
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.048

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreReview

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 Conflict and Security LawSame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207