MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W830200370 · doi:10.1163/15718123-01505001

Non-coupables! Le non-refoulement, les assurances diplomatiques et la réinstallation des acquittés des juridictions pénales internationales dans leurs pays d’origine

2015· article· en· W830200370 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Ouigou Savadogo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Criminal Law Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Criminal Justice Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawEconomic JusticeState (computer science)Political scienceSociologyDouble jeopardyRelocation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses an issue henceforth well-known as one of the most topical challenges international criminal justice is subject to: the relocation of acquitted in their home countries. It starts with a mere factual finding on the contextual differences between the situation at the icty, the ictr and the icc while analyzing the legal issues surrounding returning home (unfair trials, personal safety, double jeopardy) before leaving room to a gripping and dialectical discussion on the applicability of the non-refoulement to international organizations. Are legal non-state entities – such as icc and ictr as a subsidiary body of the un Security Council – legally liable for returning an acquitted person back to his country where his life would be threatened because of his political opinions or his membership to a particular group? The article identifies diplomatic assurances as a possible avenue, while listing the indicators and the conditions of validity of such assurances.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Criminal Law ReviewSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207