MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7057451652

The International Rule of Law in a Human Rights Era

2014· article· en· W7057451652 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of the Pacific) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoUniversidad Autónoma MetropolitanaUniversität WienYork UniversityUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsHuman rightsInternational human rights lawTribunalSierra leoneInternational lawPublic international lawRule of lawDue processTransitional justice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Brandeis Institute for International Judges (BIIJ) has established itself as a significant and world-renowned program that promotes the role of judges working in the domain of international law and justice.Organized by the International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life of Brandeis University, the BIIJ provides a venue for judges from international and regional courts to discuss important issues relating to the administration of justice across their varied jurisdictions.In 2013, the BIIJ was organized, for the first time in its 12-year history, in partnership with outside academic bodies working in the same field.The institute was held in Lund, Sweden, in collaboration with the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Lund University Faculty of Law around the theme "The International Rule of Law in a Human Rights Era."This report of the Lund session provides an extremely interesting and useful read for those working in the field of international justice and human rights.BIIJ 2013 was an enormous success.As one of the regular institute participants and a member of its 2013 Program Committee, I can attest that the intense interaction that took place in Lund between judges, who have to handle the delicate task of administering justice in a difficult political environment, and academics, who are engaged in creating a theoretical framework for international justice, was a valuable experience for all.In today's world, globalization is not just an economic phenomenon but also a social reality for the international community, which consists of individual human beings.It is of paramount importance that international law, which sets the legal framework for the public order of this human community, should be focused on respect for human dignity through ensuring human security in every corner of the globe.The role of judges engaged in this endeavor-whether at the international, regional or national level-is of ever-increasing importance.The work of the 2013 Brandeis Institute for International Judges, thanks in part to the cooperation of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute and the Lund Faculty of Law, has made a substantial contribution to the cause of human security, an essential part of which involves the promotion of human rights through the proper functioning of international courts and tribunals.

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)0.005
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (University of the Pacific)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207