MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580401745 · doi:10.1017/s0069005800009899

Searching for Accountability: The Draft UN International Convention on the Regulation, Oversight, and Monitoring of Private Military and Security Companies

2010· article· en· W1580401745 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Benjamin Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityWrongdoingConventionPolitical scienceTreatyTransparency (behavior)LawPrivate sectorPublic administrationInternational communityBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The proliferation of private military and security companies has attracted significant public and scholarly attention during the last decade. This comment examines the United Nations Draft International Convention on the Regulation, Oversight and Monitoring of Private Military and Security Companies (Draft Convention). It discusses the significance of the Draft Convention and then describes the approach taken to the regulation of this controversial topic. Several problematic elements of the Draft Convention are identified including the definition of prohibited activities, State responsibility for the conduct of private military and security companies and the proposed International Criminal Court referral mechanism. Finally, specific policy recommendations are made for the government of Canada as a home state and contracting state of private military and security services, irrespective of the progress of negotiations on the Draft Convention.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0210.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit internationalSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207