MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7073912183

Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage and the Law: A Research Companion

2025· other· en· W7073912183 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural heritageSanctionsConventionDeclarationState (computer science)Human rightsWar crime
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread dissemination of videos of the destruction of world cultural heritage sites over the past two decades, such as the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra, have shocked the world. These acts are perhaps the clearest and most glaring examples of what is meant by the ‘Intentional Destruction of the Cultural Heritage of Humankind’ (IDCHH). The book explores in detail the remedies against IDCHH available under international law. These remedies are defined as all the lawful responses provided for both by customary law and by the special responsibility regimes created under the many substantive areas of international law. The examination includes UNESCO instruments and UN measures for the maintenance of international peace, mechanisms for the protection of human rights and those for the protection of investments, and international criminal justice outcomes through the decisions of the Permanent Criminal Court. Thus, the book explores avenues for response such as appeals to international courts, peacekeeping operations and referrals to the criminal legislation of States, in addition to reparations. The concept of the Cultural Heritage of Humankind implies that IDCHH harms all States and all peoples and human groupings in the world, not only the State or people on whose territory the cultural property is located. The book identifies the international law avenues for subjects not directly injured by IDCHH to obtain its cessation and reparation. This book is essential reading for students, academics and practitioners exploring international law and the destruction of cultural heritage.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.021
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→