Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pursuant to Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions High Contracting Parties are in the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law. Weapon reviews had been carried out in the Federal Armed Forces long before the entry into force of Protocol I in 1991 for the Federal Republic of Germany. But there was no specific procedure. This means that weapon reviews were carried out as part of the general ministerial work of the legal affairs directorate of the German Ministry of Defence. Although this type of procedure provided appropriate results, it had a number of shortcomings. As a result, in March 2015 for the first time a formal procedure for weapon reviews was established. Core element is a steering committee for the review of new weapons and methods of warfare under the direction of the Directorate-General for Legal Affairs. The committee includes representatives of all directorates-general that are involved in this process. This facilitates the use of comprehensive expertise in the weapon review and at the same time also allows review projects to be introduced from a wide variety of areas. By a joint service regulation enacted in June 2016, especially the procedures the steering committee carries out, some definitions and timelines were regulated. The main focus was on permanently integrating the weapon review procedure into the general rocurement process for military equipment. The idea was to connect the procedure for weapon reviews with that for procurement and to stipulate clear preconditions when a request for a weapon review hat to be submitted. As a general parameter for weapon reviews, the following rule was laid down in the joint service regulation: Whether a new weapon or method of warfare should or can be introduced ultimately depends on whether – in view of the applicable laws – there are sufficient conceivable scenarios in which a militarily sensible and operationally possible use can be judged to be legal. This rule underlines the fact that a legal review of new weapons cannot be carried out solely by means of legal expertise but also technical, medical and military-operational analyses have to be involved. The rule shows as well that, in general, a weapon review can reach a conclusive decision in only a small number of cases. Apart from that, it provides criteria for procurement decisions, which must take into consideration political, military and financial factors. Or it provides a basis – if a weapon is procured – for the development of principles of employment and rules for the use of a weapon.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.093 |
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".