Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UN operation in Cambodia was a major venture provided with extensive resources and entrusted to implement a highly ambitious program contained in the Paris Accords signed on October23, 1991. Today, official rhetoric speaks of a "model" when referring to what a more modest view would treat as an experience - one from which it is indispensable to draw all the lessons. The UN proved unable to carry out much of its mission. It jailed to disarm the rival troops. It jailed to neutralize the Communist party's omnipresent influence over existing administrative structures. It failed to repair or rebuild a minimum of infrastructure in such basic areas as health, education, and communications. It failed to reintegrate into society the 372,000 refugees who had come back from camps in Thailand. It failed to preserve the country's unity and territorial integrity. Yet it did score some successes. It laid the ground work for a pluralistic society. It repatriated the refugees. It organized elections that were free and fair enough to allow new, thoroughly legitimate institutions to come into being. A cautious assessment of this operation leads to a reflection on the conditions for success or failure of such a venture. Lessons are to be learned from each step : starting from the diplomatic moves behind the decision to carry out the operation and the mandate defining its scope ; and ending with the political, economic, and social repercussions due to thousands of soldiers and foreign civilian administrators passing through the country. Each phase of the flow of operations must also be questioned, from recruitment of personnel to assessment of the results obtained.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.005 |
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".