MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001607217

Landmine Victim Assistance in South-East Europe: Final Study Report

2003· article· en· W7001607217 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Service (business)Poison controlWork (physics)Point (geometry)Local government
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 2002, Handicap International Belgium, in co-operation with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines' (ICBL) Landmine Monitor research network, began a research project on behalf of the Reay Group, which was funded through the ITF by Canada and the US State Department. The study should provide the ITF, donors, and service providers, with a clearer picture of the state of victim assistance in South East Europe. It is a starting point that should encourage relevant actors, including government authorities, donors, and local and international program implementers, to share information, to make informed decisions on where to direct resources, or to develop new initiatives, that will promote the complete care, rehabilitation and reintegration of landmine survivors.\nThe study objectives are to present a clearer picture of the number of landmine survivors in the region; identify services/facilities for landmine survivors in the region; determine the capacity of existing services/facilities to address the needs of landmine survivors; identify challenges/gaps in providing landmine victime assistance; identify opportunities for regional cooperation in victim assistance; provide an analysis and data for States, donors, and victim assistance practitioners to improve the effectiveness and reach of victim assistance prgramming responses.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University)Same topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207