MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413295375 · doi:10.1017/aju.2025.10011

Commonalities in Recent Reparations Practice: Reflections on a Wider Legal Sensibility

2025· article· en· W4413295375 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Barnes

Bibliographic record

VenueAJIL Unbound · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensibilityPolitical scienceSociologyEpistemologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expectation that those impacted by violations of public international law will receive a remedy has ballooned in recent years. Such expectations have shaped international legal discourse in unexpected ways and generated concrete action. In DRC v. Uganda (2022) , the International Court of Justice awarded US$330 million in damages for wartime violations. 1 International climate change talks are increasingly preoccupied with a controversial fund to address loss and damage. 2 In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its largest victims reparations order. 3 These developments are celebrated as examples of realizing an individual’s international legal right to reparation. While an important starting point, this perspective fails to provide a full picture of these novel practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAJIL UnboundSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207