Landmine Victim Assistance in South-East Europe: Final Study Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".