Asean Synergy Makes a Mine-Free World in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention for the Comprehensive Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, was created with the aim of realizing a "Mine Free World". Indonesia ratified the 1997 Ottawa Convention into Law “Undang- Undang” Number 20 of 2006. As a State Party, Indonesia is bound to comply with all provisions of the convention. Most important is the commitment to protect every citizen of his country from falling victim to anti-personnel mines. During the armed conflict in Aceh, mines were used by both parties, namely the Indonesian Security Forces and the Free Aceh Movement. The indication is the number of victims who were dominated by civilians after the conflict ended. For this reason, the parties are deemed not to comply with and carry out their responsibilities as intended by the conventions and principles of international humanitarian law. The two sides seemed not doing their best to resolve the problems caused by the presence of anti-personnel mines. Therefore, the experience of ASEAN countries that have succeeded in burying their past due to involvement in armed conflict, is very much needed in mediating the problems experienced in Aceh, Indonesia. Experiences like Vietnam and Cambodia are indispensable in initiating an anti-personnel mine clearance agenda whose findings are still ongoing. Then the Philippines as a party to this convention, which has the characteristics of a non-international armed conflict like Indonesia, also needs its contribution in this regard. ASEAN involvement is intended to work together to encourage the two parties to continue the peace agenda in Aceh according to the Helsinki MoU on August 15, 2005 and Law “Undang-Undang” Number 11 of 2006 on Aceh Governance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".