MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W279258943 · doi:10.21236/ada392357

Strategic Mobility, The Force Proejction Army, and the Ottawa Landmine Treaty: Can the Army Get There?

2001· report· en· W279258943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Johnson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyPolitical scienceAeronauticsEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current and emerging United States Army doctrine places great emphasis on the concepts of strategic responsiveness and force projection to meet the National Security Strategy requirements. The use or potential use, of land mines significantly increases the lethality of the Army force during deterrence and combat operations, and enhances survivability. In essence, with the use of land mines, the U.S. Army achieves an economy of force that in effect increases the U.S. Army's agility, versatility and ability to deploy. Smaller more deployable Army forces such as the medium brigade and light units can generate more combat power by using the effects provided by land mines integrated with other combat systems. However, in order to use land mines worldwide, the U.S. must move, store, or reposition land mines in, through, or to the theater and area of operations prior to, concurrently, or in conjunction with the deploying Army force. Movement of forces, material, and equipment across international borders and into sovereign nations requires the permission of those nations, or a conscious decision to violate international laws and conventions regarding sovereignty. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and their Destruction also known as the Ottawa Landmine Treaty has the potential to place severe limits on the United States ability to deploy forces. This study examines the question: Does the Ottawa Landmine Treaty significantly affect the strategic responsiveness of the force projection Army? Beginning with a review and analysis of the treaty language, this study examines the United States policy on antipersonnel landmines and its origin, the concepts of force projection and strategic responsiveness, and two recent force projection operations involving United States Army forces. This review and assessment leads to two potential forms of the treaty in the future: status quo and restrictive.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207