MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017873470

Command Responsibility

2024· book-chapter· en· W7017873470 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBond University Research Portal (Bond University) · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityCommand and controlDoctrineControl (management)Criminal liability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter considers the doctrine of command responsibility in light of the findings of the Australian Defence Force's Afghanistan Inquiry Report that concluded there was credible evidence that a small number of Australian defence personnel may have committed breaches of the laws of armed conflict during the Afghanistan conflict. It considers the potential liability of those higher in the chain of command for such activity, if proven.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.017

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBond University Research Portal (Bond University)Same topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207