ICRC Position Paper No. 5 – January 1998, Anti-personnel Mines: Agenda 1998 – From Prohibition to Elimination and Adequate Care for the Victims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the opening for signature of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the Convention) in Ottawa, Canada, from 3–4 December 1997, the international community is moving one step closer towards a comprehensive response to the scourge of anti-personnel mines. This new instrument of international humanitarian law represents a landmark in efforts to end the landmines epidemic and is a testament to the efforts of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and governments which have joined the “Ottawa process”. Yet major challenges remain before the effects of this Convention are felt in fields, villages and conflict zones around the world. The Ottawa treaty represents a prescription for ending the mines epidemic. But the cure will require sustained, and costly, long-term efforts. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement will need to work vigorously to: (a) promote universal adherence to and full implementation of the Convention; (b) strengthen its efforts to provide adequate care for mine victims; and (c) encourage comprehensive humanitarian mine clearance in affected countries. For many years to come, the Movement will continue to have an essential role to play in addressing the aftermath of the landmines epidemic. In 1997, the tide turned against anti-personnel mines as they became stigmatized in international public opinion as an unacceptable weapon, the use of which could no longer be justified.With determined action in 1998 and beyond, the human suffering caused by landmines will slowly begin to diminish.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.018 |
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".