Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Budapest Conference provided an opportunity for States from central and eastern Europe to come together to discuss the mines problem in the region and beyond. Although most of the countries of central Europe had signed the Ottawa treaty, adherence in eastern Europe was limited, and there were hopes that a number of States could be encouraged to look again at the military need for anti-personnel mines. Accordingly, under the umbrella of the regional conference, the ICRC convened a seminar for defence and foreign affairs officials from the region, on the military utility and humanitarian costs of anti-personnel mines. Participants were asked to consider the actual effectiveness of landmines in combat compared with their long-term effects and to discuss alternatives to anti-personnel mines, for example through an evolution in military doctrine. A strong final declaration was adopted by the seminar, although participants from Belarus and the Russian Federation were unable fully to support it. Final Declaration of Participants ICRC seminar on the humanitarian impact and military utility of anti-personnel mines Budapest, Hungary 27–28 March 1998 (Participants from ministries of foreign affairs and defence of Albania, Belarus⋇, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FYR of Macedonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation⋇, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine) Defence and foreign affairs officials from 19 European States gathered in Budapest, Hungary, to examine the experience of anti-pe rsonnel mine use in the region. Participants discussed the military effectiveness ofanti-pe rsonnel mines based on their actual combat performance in European and other conflicts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.016 |
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".