Impactos económicos generados por el uso de Minas Antipersonal en Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las minas antipersonales (MAP) son dispositivos que, a diferencia de otras armas, están disenadas para ser accionadas con la presencia, proximidad o contacto con una persona. Gracias a su bajo costo, representan una alternativa para la defensa de infraestructura y de zonas vitales en un conflicto armado, lo que explica el amplio uso que le han dado los ejércitos regulares y los grupos subversivos. El problema con las minas es su periodo de actividad. Su accionar no se limita, como otras armas, a la duración del conflicto, sino que, si no son removidas, sus efectos pueden perdurar por anos afectando a la población (causan víctimas civiles y militares) y al desarrollo de las actividades de las zonas donde fueron sembradas (bloqueo de infraestructura, fuentes de agua, tierras de cultivos, etc.). Esta situación tiende a cambiar, gracias a la entrada en vigencia de la Convención de Ottawa, firmada por unos 150 países en diciembre de 1997, que prohibe la producción, almacenamiento, transporte y uso de este tipo de minas y compromete a los estados firmantes a limpiar los campos minados existentes en sus territorios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".