Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international criminal court needs to follow legal principles in order to reach its goals and perform its duties.These legal principles might be resulted from the international law and some of them might have been explicitly mentioned in different treaties and some of them might have turn into an international custom and might be observed internationally because they have been implemented by countries in their national laws as well as international ones.These principles might have been accepted in the national laws of the countries by being mentioned in international treaties or they might have been resulted from national criminal laws.The one of the basic and significant principles that the international criminal court requires in the beginning of its work is the principle that any court needs the Code of Criminal Procedure given the laws of its establishment.At the start of the matter and at the beginning of any kind of investigation and performance, the jurisdiction of the criminal, the jurisdiction associated with the crime scene and the jurisdiction associated with the crime must be taken into consideration.The range of jurisdiction of the international criminal court is, on one hand, international or global.On the other hand, given the territorial or material scope or what is called local jurisdiction or to put it more accurately, territorial jurisdiction in criminal law, it can be national and finally, from the aspect of attention and jurisdiction, this court is associated with specific individuals given their situations and personalities.This research aims to review the status of principles and rules of criminal law in the Statute of the International Criminal Law.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.962 | 0.956 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".