Restriction and Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines in International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".