Bibliographic record
Abstract
When on July 16th war broke out between Honduras and El Salvador, their comparative strengths were such that El Salvador quickly assumed the upper hand. Its troops routed the adversary and occupied large sections of Honduran territory. The advantage gained by El Salvador from its victory was of short duration however. The intervention of the OAS forced an end to the hostilities and obtained from El Salvador the evacuation of the conquered geographical space. This war nevertheless constituted only a moment of a conflict that has already lasted a very long time. Migratory questions are at the heart of the outstanding differences between the two countries. El Salvador refused to accept that its national domiciled in Honduras should have heir possessions seized and be returned to their country of origin while Honduras, alarmed and fearing the consequences of a clandestine occupation of its territory, intended to put an end to that situation. The two adversaries' determination was such that negotiations and bargaining were powerless to bring their positions closer together. Confronted with this impasse, the Honduran authorities decided to proceed unilaterally and war ensued. The calculation was not unfounded since El Salvador did not succeed in gaining the fruits of its victory. Its objectives — protection of human resources and systemic relations — were far from achieved. It was therefore Honduras that appeared to be in a better position. The expulsion and dispossession of Salvadoran nationals continued after the cessation of hostilities. The hoped for restructuration of systemic relations between the two countries is progressing despite the threats and protests of the Salvadoran government.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".