The Manual of International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space (MILAMOS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Manual of International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space (MILAMOS process to produce the ‘McGill Manual’) is currently being developed jointly by the University of Adelaide, McGill University and the University of Exeter. The core participants of this project include practitioners, academics, technical experts, military officers and government lawyers. The production of such a Manual is critical and timely given the international community is increasingly recognizing that warfare conducted in, to and from outer space is both foreseeable and potentially highly damaging to national security interests as well as civilian activities on earth and space. Despite this, there has been little interest in formulating any kind of new legal instrument that grapples with this militarization phenomenon. Moreover, there has also been insufficient research and a lack of clarity on the interactions between international space law and the law relating to the Use of Force and International Humanitarian Law. This paper considers the role of International Operational Law Manuals in providing a non-binding architecture for normative compliance and highlights key legal issues that are being navigated in the MILAMOS process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".