MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067771284

Mine Action in Afghanistan: The Way Ahead

2006· article· en· W7067771284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlan (archaeology)TreatyAction (physics)AfghanAction planPortfolioStrategic planningGovernment (linguistics)Development planSafeguarding
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the strategy for the Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA), as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is committed to the vision of a country free from landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW), where people and communities live in a safe environment conducive to national development, and where landmine and ERW survivors are fully integrated in the society and thus have their rights and needs recognized and fulfilled. The Way Ahead paper provides a vision and establishes end goals for the Afghan mineaction programme that are consistent with Afghanistan’s Ottawa Treaty obligations. Moreover, the strategy paper was intended as a base for a detailed and costed plan called the “Plan for Action”, which would describe how the UNMACA and its implementing partners would conduct the MAPA over a three-year period. The Plan establishes specific targets and milestones, and describes how these targets would be achieved. The first Plan will cover the period 1385-1387. The GoA adhered to the Millennium Development Goals at the end of 2005, and engaged in the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) in 2006. Consequently, additional benchmarks have been set for the MAPA, and UNMCA has undertaken a review of the strategic plan according to these new Influencing Factors, which will be reflected in the three year Portfolio for Mine Action.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University)Same topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207