MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mines, Booby-Traps, and Other Devices

2016· book-chapter· en· W4246823630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William H Boothby

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationTreatyLawDoctrineConventionProtocol (science)Political scienceEngineeringComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Developments in treaty law starting in 1980 have produced a complex selection of treaties and a Declaration all addressing mines, booby-traps and other devices. Chapter 11 takes each of these instruments in turn explaining the relevant provisions and thereby seeks to demonstrate how the legally complex array of rules inter-relates. The discussion shows how rules in this area have developed from what were essentially reflections of contemporary doctrine in the 1980 Protocol II to more definitive and technologically-based requirements in the Amended Protocol, thereafter culminating in the comprehensive ban of anti-personnel mines in the Ottawa Convention. The legal status of the 2006 CCW Declaration on Mines other than Anti-personnel Mines is also considered.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207