MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529152630

The status of landmines in international humanitarian law

2012· article· hr· W2529152630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nebojša Raičević

Bibliographic record

VenueSCIndeks · 2012
Typearticle
Languagehr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObligationProtocol (science)International humanitarian lawTreatyConventionLawGeneva ConventionsBusinessInternational communityPolitical scienceInternational lawEngineeringComputer securityComputer sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to serious humanitarian problems caused by landmines, the international community has adopted three international treaties containing a number of prohibitions and restrictions on this kind of conventional weapons. The use of landmines was first restricted by Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (1980), which was subsequently amended in 1996. The 1980 Protocol adopted the same restrictions for anti-personnel and anti-tank mines but, in practice, these restrictions proved to be inadequate for eliminating harmful humanitarian effects. The 1996 Amended Protocol brought some improvements in comparison to the initial version of this treaty. This Protocol contains special more stringent provisions on the use of anti-personnel mines, and brings additional restrictions on the use of remotely delivered mines. It has also significantly improved the rules on recording minefields for a later removal of landmines. The largest step forward was made by the adoption of the Ottawa Convention on the anti-personnel mines which explicitly prohibits the use of these mines, their stockpiling, production and transfer, and imposes the obligation to destroy the existent stocks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.034
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSCIndeksSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207