Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article highlights the main challenges and problems of mine action in Ukraine in modern conditions. A brief overview of the formation of mine action as a comprehensive legal institution as one of the most well-known types of international assistance is provided. The purpose of the article is to consider the defining principles of mine action in Ukraine based on the views of scholars, international standards and current legislation. A comparative analysis of the definitions of mine action established by the United Nations in the International Mine Action Standards and the Law of Ukraine of 06.12.2018 No. 2642-VIII “On Mine Action in Ukraine” is carried out. It is determined that the basic principles of mine action primarily consist in the observance of the law in its implementation. Given the large number of possible mine action operators (subdivisions of state bodies, business entities of various forms of ownership, including international and foreign), equality between them is important. The State is the main subject of regulation of the sphere and the formation of policies, support, control, and international cooperation. The article discusses the main provisions, purpose, goals and stages of implementation of the National Mine Action Strategy for the period up to 2033. Particular attention is paid to the UN Convention of 18.09.1997 on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, known as the Ottawa Convention, as well as to the new geopolitical challenges that led to the adoption of Council Resolution 58/22 on the impact of anti-personnel mines on the full enjoyment of all human rights, which testifies to the support of the Ottawa Convention at a critical time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".