MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991977886

Understanding the Ottawa Convention’s Obligations to Landmine Victims

2006· article· en· W2991977886 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kerry Brinkert

Bibliographic record

VenueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMine actionConventionLawPolitical scienceAeronauticsCriminologyEngineeringPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ottawa Convention is unique for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the Convention has linked obligations concerning the use of a weapon with a requirement that Convention signatories assist a victim wounded by that weapon. When the Convention was adopted in September 1997, this aspect, while lauded by diplomats and activists, was certain to be a challenge to implement. The real work began once the Convention entered into force and states had to act on this responsibility. This article discusses in particular the Convention’s victim assistance obligations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University)Same topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207