Twenty Years After Ottawa: “Unpacking” Mine Action in Peace Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mine action is essential for long-term peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction. Using new data, this article explores the nexus between mine action and peace processes, providing an analysis of trends in the inclusion of mine action provisions in peace agreements. Initial findings indicate that the inclusion of mine action provisions within peace agreements have remained relatively stable at 9.6% over 26 years. This is the case, regardless of efforts by United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in promoting the inclusion of mine action in ceasefire and peace agreements. Thus, the inclusion of mine action in peace agreements appears determined by the perceived pragmatic needs required to be addressed by conflict parties. Nonetheless, around the ratification period of the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, there was a small peak in the percentage of agreements that referenced mine action. Other trends indicate that mine action is more prevalent in interstate rather than intra-state peace agreements, that NGOs have begun to take a greater role in the negotiation of mine action–specific agreements, and that there is a greater diffusion of mine action awareness to local-level peace agreements.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".