Implications of the Ottawa Convention on the Joint Force: What's Next?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use Stockpiling Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction has created limitations on the flexibility and freedom of action of the Joint Force Commander. To reduce these restrictions, the United States must work with potential coalition partners to leverage an interpretation of the Convention language that allows for continued stockpiling of U.S. anti-personnel land mines in forward staging, gain free access to ports, airfields, and airspace within nations party to the Conventions, and develop innovative methods to maintain the coalition and reduce the legal implications on those partners willing to participate with the United States when anti-personnel land mines are required. The Joint Force Commander and his staff will also need to work with U.S. leaders to prevent the restriction on cluster munitions, and aggressively pursue alternative technologies to replace the indiscriminate anti-personnel land mines. By so doing, the United States will ensure the Joint Force Commander possesses a full weapons array with which to conduct the joint fight.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".