MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996255224

Responsibility to Protect (R2P): The ICISS Commission Fifteen Years On

2018· article· en· W6996255224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueANU Open Research (Australian National University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResponsibility to protectCommissionNormativeGenocideHuman rightsOptimismInternational lawGeneral assemblySecurity council
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada played a crucial role in the birth of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm,
\nendorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2005, and can remain proud of its achievement
\nin generating a new international consensus about how to respond to genocide and other
\nmass atrocity crimes. Good progress has been made against the four relevant benchmarks
\n– R2P’s role as a normative force, institutional catalyst, effective preventive framework
\nand effective reactive framework. Despite the breakdown of Security Council consensus
\nover Libya in 2011, and the failure since then of R2P to stop mass atrocity crimes in
\nSyria, there are grounds for optimism about its more effective implementation in the
\nfuture.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueANU Open Research (Australian National University)Same topicGlobal Peace and Security DynamicsFrench-language works237,207