MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523548254 · doi:10.1021/cen-v079n015.p023

LAND MINE TREATY IN PERIL FOR U.S.

2001· article· en· W2523548254 on OpenAlex
MAUREEN ROUHI

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical & Engineering News · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyPolitical scienceLawEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY TO replace all current antipersonnel land mines (APLs) would not be in place by 2006, according to a National Academies report released last month. For this reason, the U.S. is not likely to sign the Ottawa Convention banning land mines by that target date. The report, "Alternative Technologies To Replace Antipersonnel Landmines," was prepared by a committee chaired by George Bugliarello, chancellor of Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, N.Y., and impaneled by the National Academies at the request of the Department of Defense. The Ottawa Convention, signed or acceded by 139 nations, bans the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of APLs. It is aimed at eradicating a weapon that each year indiscriminately kills or maims about 26,000 people worldwide. The U.S. has not signed the treaty but has indicated it would in 2006 if suitable alternatives for the weapons could be fielded by then. "We've been hearing from Pentagon people for more ...

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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