The Ottawa Process: Domestic Interests, Transnational Civil Society, and State Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1997 Convention to prohibit the production, use, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines (also known as the Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty) is a landmark accomplishment for two key reasons (Williams and Goose 1998; Lawson and Tomlinson 1998; Landmine Monitor 1). First, the speed with which treaty negotiations took place is unprecedented in international relations. Second, the negotiation process itself was remarkable because transnational non-state actors were an integral part of the process. Although both of these points have been the subjects of excellent scholarly inquiries (Price 1998; Anderson 2000; Rutherford 2001), few have attempted to understand the comprehensive role of three Minervian actors — Canada, the European Union, and Japan — in the Ottawa Process. The Ottawa Convention was negotiated, ratified, and entered into force without the support of the United States and despite objections from the largest producers of antipersonnel landmines. How was it possible for Canada, the EU, and Japan to overcome US objections to a comprehensive ban on antipersonnel (AP) landmines? Why would these three actors undertake this course of action, given the risks to their relations with the United States?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".