Certain International and Criminal Law Aspects of the Use and Circulation of Weapons and Ammunition During Interstate or Civil Armed Conflicts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At its 63rd session, the UN General Assembly noted that present-day armed conflicts blurred the distinction between international and internal armed conflicts. The number of civil wars has increased, and, statistically, they are more frequent than international armed conflicts. Furthermore, many of these 'civil wars' include 'external' components, such as support and involvement, in varying degrees, by other states that supply arms, provide training camps, financial resources, etc. The existing international humanitarian law contains provisions that govern the use of weapons. They may be divided into groups: 1. Banning and restricting specific DOI 10.32370/IA_2019_09_11 types of weapons under international treaties. 2. Banning and restricting certain types of weapons, such as poison, biological and chemical weapons, under traditional international law. 3. General principles that govern the use of weapons under international humanitarian law.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".