I fragili confini del territorio: a proposito dell’efficacia extraterritoriale dei diritti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il contributo analizza i casi giurisdizionali di maggiore rilievo in tema di efficacia extraterritoriale dei diritti, soffermandosi sugli aspetti più critici e sottolineandone i profili di maggiore interesse. Copiosa è la giurisprudenza delle Corti Supreme degli Stati Uniti e del Canada, le quali hanno affrontato il problema con particolare riferimento al privilegio dell’habeas corpus e al giusto processo. Alcune recenti pronunce della Corte di giustizia UE e della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo mostrano invece come le attività di sorveglianza elettronica e di intelligence sharing pongano in una nuova luce la questione dell’efficacia territoriale delle Carte dei diritti. Un’ultima riflessione la impone una recente sentenza del Tribunale costituzionale federale tedesco, sempre in materia di sorveglianza elettronica, con cui è stato affermato – per la prima volta – che le autorità pubbliche sono vincolate al rispetto dei diritti sanciti in Costituzione anche quando agiscono all’estero.
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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".