MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489528053

Data Fusion for Mine Action Decision Support: An Example From Lebanon

2004· article· en· W2489528053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aldo Benini, Charles Conley

Bibliographic record

VenueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMine actionDecision support systemOperations researchAction (physics)Sensor fusionComputer scienceMining engineeringEngineeringData miningPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within humanitarian mine action, progress in integrating information is manifest chiefly by the way the traditional array of survey activities have been reformed. Following the 1997 Ottawa Treaty to ban anti-personnel mines, several mine action non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) launched the Global Landmine Survey, a multi-country survey project. This initiative has helped to institutionalize the collection of social and economic data, along with contaminated-area data, to enhance the overall management of mine action programs worldwide, and in that sense has achieved a paradigm change over the erstwhile purely technical approach to mine clearance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.019 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University)Same topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207