MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229077621

Ends and Means: Assessing the Humanitarian Impact of Commercialised Security on the Ottawa Convention Banning Anti-Personnel Mines

2001· article· en· W2229077621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Spearin

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionLawPolitical scienceBusinessComputer securityComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper is divided into two parts; the first part provides an explanation and the second adds to policy-making. The first part describes the benefits arising from humanitarian demining and then identifies reasons why outside, non-state assistance is needed for this undertaking. Essential here is an understanding of the PSC, a new post-Cold War nonstate security actor. While turning to the private sector may be a necessity, the PSC industry as currently managed and regulated poses unique problems for states and NGOs in their humanitarian demining operations. In this regard, the paper explores why these problems may have been overlooked despite the negative impact of some PSC activities. Finally, the second part addresses ways to help overcome both the problems inherent in PSC activity and the reasons why solutions to them have not yet been found. It offers a sketch of an effective regulatory framework of the larger PSC industry which would have direct beneficial effects for the specific issue of humanitarian demining. Without regulation of this kind, the more problematic aspects of this new industry may gain legitimacy “through the back door” due to the current salience and popularity of humanitarian demining thanks largely due to the Ottawa 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207