Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has shown a notable caution when dealing with self-determination. There seem to be two methods. First, a court focuses on the legal aspects of self-determination. This approach was arguably taken by the ICJ in the Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory Opinion of 2004. Second, there is the same method of balancing used in the drafting of instruments. These balances are a response to the twin nationalist-legal pressures. The ICJ in the Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute Case and the Russian Constitutional Court in Tatarstan and Chechnya, used basic nationalist arguments in their decisions. More significantly, the two commissions in the Aland Islands dispute, the Canadian Supreme Court in Re. Secession of Quebec, and the ICJ in Western Sahara have used substantial nationalist arguments involving quite elaborate descriptions of peoples.Keywords: Aland Islands dispute; Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute; Canadian Supreme Court; Chechnya; international law; Re. Secession of Quebec; Russian Constitutional Court; self-determination; Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory; Western Sahara
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".