Alternative Technologies to Replace Antipersonnel Landmines
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive Summary Introduction Definition History of Mines Residual Hazards of Mines International Instruments The U.S. Position Committee Process Report Road Map National Security Environments and the Context National Security Strategies Benefits and Vulnerabilities of New Technologies Current Uses of Antipersonnel Landmines Doctrinal Guidance for Using Landmines Role of Landmines in Warfare Capabilities of Antipersonnel Landmines Technologies in Antipersonnel Landmiens Evaluation Methodology Methodology Baseline Systems Criteria Alternatives Available Today Overview Nonmateriel Alternatives Materiel Alternatives Committee Assessments Alternatives Available by 2006 Overview Nonmateriel Alternatives Materiel Alternatives Committee Assessments Alternatives Potentially Available After 2006 Overview Materiel Alternatives Committee Assessments Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction Alternatives Available by 2006 Alternatives Potentially Available After 2006 Self-Destructing, Self-Deactivating Fuzes References Appendixes A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members B Committee Meetings C Current Types of U.S. Landmines D Value of Antipersonnel Landmines in Unprotected Mixed Minefields E The Ottawa Convention and Amended Protecol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons F Signatories to the Ottawa Convention and their Alternatives to Landmines G Mission Need Statements
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it