Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010 NATO decided to form a Team of Experts to look into non-lethal weapons, and a subgroup og this was non-lethal kinetic energy weapons. The group was called the Non-Lethal Kinetic Energy Team of Experts (NLKE ToE) under the aegis of the NATO Army Armaments Group Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Capability Group (NAAG JNLW CG). The object of the group was to define common test procedures for the various participating laboratories in the domain of blunt trauma effects. A general Standardization Recommendation (STANREC) called “Risk assessment of non-lethal kinetic energy projectiles” (STANREC 4744) was developed. The defined deliverable for the ToE were Allied Engineering Papers (AEP) in the shape of propositions of standardization in the following areas: Skin Penetration AEP-94 was called “Skin Penetration Assessment of Non-Lethal Projectiles”; Accuracy AEP-98 “Precision assessment of non-lethal kinetic energy weapons and ammunition”; Chest impact AEP 99 “Thorax injury risk assessment of non-lethal projectiles” and Head impact AEP-103 “Head injuries assessment of non-lethal projectiles”. Abdominal impact and Effectiveness are currently both being produced. Members of the ToE are technical experts in different fields and currently one forensic pathologist. The ToE meets biannually in the participating nations, and the nations are Belgium (Chair and secretariat at the Royal Military Academy, Brussels), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".