MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405285740 · doi:10.62754/joe.v3i8.5216

Restriction and Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines in International Law

2024· article· en· W4405285740 on OpenAlex
Abdul-Salam Housain Al- Anzi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecohumanism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyPolitical scienceConventionLawInternational lawChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of "Restricting and Prohibiting Anti-Personnel Mines in International Law" is precise and branched out in detail, and therefore many international conferences and protocols were held until the signing of the Ottawa Treaty in (1997), which strictly prohibits the use of such weapons. Since then, campaigns have been active to support the implementation of the Convention, and two-thirds of the world's states have signed it, but major powers such as the United States of America, Russia and China have not ratified it. Here, several problems arise, including: How can these states be obligated to respect this Convention, especially with the 1994 Geneva Conventions free of any provision or article pertaining to mine victims, and the commitment of the world's armed groups to respect the Ottawa Treaty, are among the main dilemmas that must be resolved expeditiously.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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