Mission creep or responding to wider security needs? The evolving role of mine action organisations in Armed Violence Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1980s, mine action organisations have focused their efforts on reducing the social, economic and environmental impacts of anti-personnel mines and other explosive remnants of war (ERW) through a broad range of activities, including survey, clearance, mine risk education (MRE), victim assistance, stockpile destruction and advocacy. In recent years, an increasing number of mine action organisations are using their mine action technical expertise and their capacities to operate in difficult environments to reduce armed violence and promote public safety. Several organisations now have armed violence reduction (AVR)-related policies, programmes and staff in place. Some may argue that this shift towards AVR is a diversion from the core mandate of mine action organisations. But does this represent a loss of focus and thereby ‘mission creep’ on the part of these organisations? This practice note examines the factors underlying the evolving role of mine action organisations, discusses how these new programmes are contributing to the wider domain of AVR and explores whether these new programmes have resulted in a loss of organisational focus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".