Antipersonnel mines in Colombia : engaging non-state actors through norm compliance and construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to Colombia's internal conflict the use of antipersonnel mines is common among the non-state actors that operate in the territory. With the Ottawa Treaty many states complied towards a ban of the use of antipersonnel mines, but the Treaty was not an instrument for non-state actors to sign. Thus, the importance of establishing the mechanisms or instruments available to engage these groups with a ban on landmines, as these weapons have killed and injured millions of innocent people around the world without choosing or differentiating their victims. As states complied with an existent norm and were taught by non-governmental organizations that the problem of landmines had to be solved this is not done as easily with nonstate actors. Through literature review, and published data analysis the main conclusion is that these groups are willing to give up their arms only when it is better for them to negotiate a peace process than to keep fighting in the conflict. If they have the military and economic power to maintain themselves at war then they are not willing to negotiate. A solution might be to arrange local processes that lead to national ones, working in conjunction with non-governmental organizations, and international ones in mine risk education programs, and mine awareness. It is essential to involve the local communities in these types of processes. Since trust and confidentiality are necessary for the parts to negotiate, social processes are needed and constructivism is able to explain how these can be achieved. Transmitting ideas, values and common beliefs to the different parts in the conflict is explained through constructivism. As one of the principles of this stream is that power and self-interest are not everything but there has to be some common values and ideas involved in such processes, where other actors, not only the states are to be taken into consideration, it is important to take ideas into account as a social construction of a process that should start when the countries are still suffering from an internal conflict.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".