Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Government of Canada, Case No. UNCT/20/3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
authoritative-albeit, formally speaking, not binding-explanation of the legal framework applicable to the Israeli occupation of the OPT and of the consequences of relevant violations.As demonstrated by individual opinions, unpersuasive points are likely due to the need to reach a majority in a bench where judges had diverging views on some relevant issues.Although the findings of the Court will likely influence the way in which the Israeli occupation is addressed in diplomatic circles, it is not for the ICJ to solve all the complex legal and non-legal problems pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Correctly, the Court indicates that political organs of the UN have the responsibility to ensure the end of the Israeli occupation and the realization of Palestinian self-determination, as well as to guarantee a peaceful and stable coexistence between Israel and Palestine.These are extremely difficult goals to achieve.However, any failure in this regard should not be attributed to the ICJ: the Opinion, on its own, is not an instrument to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or part of it, but rather, it is an important parcel of a more complex and composite process involving multiple states and international organizations, largely governed by political actors rather than by international judges.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".