1,720,981 research outputs found
EJT_796540__Appendix_I_Methodology – Supplemental material for Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping
No full textSupplemental material, EJT_796540__Appendix_I_Methodology for Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping by Ingvild Bode and John Karlsrud in European Journal of International Relations</p
Automation and Autonomy in Air Defence Systems Catalogue (v.1)
No full textAutomation and Autonomy in Air Defence Systems Catalogue (v.1)
Dr Tom Watts, Department of Politics and International Relations, Hertfordshire University & Dr Ingvild Bode, Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark.
This catalogue has been created in conjunction with the ‘Meaning-Less Human Control: Lessons from Air Defence Systems on Meaningful Human Control for the debate on AWS’ report published in February 2020 as a collaboration between Drone Wars UK and the University of Southern Denmark. It provides information on the system history, maximum system range, target type, system updates/variants and automated/autonomous features of twenty-eight air defence systems which have been operated by at least sixty states.
This catalogue has been constructed using a range of open-source material. This includes: (1) press releases and marketing material from weapons manufacturers; (2) press releases and factsheets published by defence ministries; (3) technical and policy reports authored by researchers based at think tanks; (4) Media reports from reputable international news and defence outlets; and (5) other air defence system databases. All references are provided as URLs and were accessible online as of January 2nd 2021. Please note: when information about a system has been unavailable, we have listed it as NDA (No Data Available).
In constructing this open-source catalogue, we have faced three methodological challenges worth briefly highlighting here:
Many of the technical capabilities of air defence systems are not publicly available. Without having physically observed the testing and development of these systems, or been involved in their operation, we cannot be sure of their exact capabilities.
Given the political sensitivities concerning the definition of autonomy, some of the open-source information which is available on the autonomous and automated features of air defence systems is vague and, at times, even contradictory.
Whilst this catalogue has included information on the technical capabilities of air defence systems, this must be qualified by the uncertainty concerning the Rules of Engagement under which human agents use these systems.
A more detailed explanation of our case selection, catalogue index and research approach and limitations can be found in Section 3 of the accompanying report.
Spotted an error? Contact Us!
We have taken the decision to make this catalogue open-access so that, if any of the information included in this document is incorrect, we can update it accordingly. If you spot an error in this catalogue, and would like to inform us of it, we can be reached at [email protected]
Funding
Research for this data catalogue was supported by grants from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and from the European Research Council
Loitering Munitions and Unpredictability: Autonomy in Weapon Systems and Challenges to Human Control
Get PDFThis report, published by the Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark and the Royal Holloway Centre for International Security, highlights the immediate need to regulate autonomous weapon systems, or ‘killer robots’ as they are colloquially called.
Written by Dr. Ingvild Bode and Dr. Tom F.A. Watts, authors of an earlier study of air defence systems published with Drone Wars UK, the “Loitering Munitions and Unpredictability” report examines whether the use of automated, autonomous, and AI technologies as part of the global development, testing, and fielding of loitering munitions since the 1980s has impacted emerging practices and social norms of human control over the use of force. It is commonly assumed that the challenges generated by the weaponization of autonomy will materialise in the near to medium term future. The report’s central argument is that whilst most existing loitering munitions are operated by a human who authorizes strikes against system-designated targets, the integration of automated and autonomous technologies into these weapons has created worrying precedents deserving of greater public scrutiny.
Loitering munitions – or ‘killer drones’ as they are often popularly known – are expendable uncrewed aircraft which can integrate sensor-based analysis to hover over, detect and explode into targets. These weapons are very important technologies within the international regulatory debates on autonomous weapon systems – a set of technologies defined by Article 36 as weapons “where force is applied automatically on the basis of a sensor-based targeting system”.
The earliest loitering munitions such as the Israel Aerospace Industries Harpy are widely considered as being examples of weapons capable of automatically applying force via sensor-based targeting without human intervention. A May 2021 report authored by a UN Panel of Experts on Libya suggests that Kargu-2 loitering munitions manufactured by the Turkish defence company STM may have been “programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition”. According to research published by Daniel Gettinger, the number of states producing these weapons more than doubled from fewer than 10 in 2017 to almost 24 by mid-2022. The sizeable role which loitering munitions have played in the ongoing fighting between Russia and the Ukraine further underscores the timeliness of this report, having raised debates on whether so called “killer robots are the future of war?”
Most manufacturers of these weapons characterize loitering munitions as “human in the loop” systems. The operators of these systems are required to authorize strikes against system-designated targets. The findings of this report, however, suggest that the global trend toward increasing autonomy in targeting has already affected the quality and form of control over the use of force that humans can exercise over specific targeting decisions. Loitering munitions can use automated, autonomous, and to a limited extent, AI technologies to identify, track, and select targets. Some manufacturers also allude to the potential capacity of the systems to attack targets without human intervention. This suggests that human operators of loitering munitions may not always retain an ability to visually verify targets before attack. This report highlights three principal areas of concern:
Greater uncertainties regarding how human agents exert control over specific targeting decisions.
The use of loitering munitions as anti-personnel weapons and in populated areas.
Potential indiscriminate and wide area effects associated with the fielding of loitering munitions.
This report’s analysis is drawn from two sources of data: first, a new qualitative data catalogue which compiles the available open-source information about the technical details, development history, and use of autonomy and automation in a global sample of 24 loitering munitions; and second, an in-depth study of how such systems have been used in three recent conflicts – the Libyan Civil War (2014-2020), the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, and the War in Ukraine (2022-).
Based on its findings, the authors urge the various stakeholder groups participating in the debates at the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Group of Governmental Experts and elsewhere to develop and adopt legally binding international rules on autonomy in weapon systems, including loitering munitions as a category therein. It is recommended that states:
Affirm, retain, and strengthen the current standard of real-time, direct human assessment of, and control over, specific targeting decisions when using loitering munitions and other weapons integrating automated, autonomous, and AI technologies as a firewall for ensuring compliance with legal and ethical norms.
Establish controls over the duration and geographical area within which weapons like loitering munitions that can use automated, autonomous, and AI technologies to identify, select, track, and apply force can operate.
Prohibit the integration of machine learning and other forms of unpredictable AI algorithms into the targeting functions of loitering munitions because of how this may fundamentally alter the predictability, explainability, and accountability of specific targeting decisions and their outcomes.
Establish controls over the types of environments in which sensor-based weapons like loitering munitions that can use automated, autonomous, and AI technologies to identify, select, track, and apply force to targets can operate. Loitering munitions functioning as AWS should not be used in populated areas.
Prohibit the use of certain target profiles for sensor-based weapons which use automated, autonomous, and AI technologies in targeting functions. This should include prohibiting the design, testing, and use of autonomy in weapon systems, including loitering munitions, to “target human beings” as well as limiting the use of such weapons “to objects that are military objectives by nature” (ICRC, 2021: 2.).
Be more forthcoming in releasing technical details relating to the quality of human control exercised in operating loitering munitions in specific targeting decisions. This should include the sharing, where appropriate, of details regarding the level and character of the training that human operators of loitering munitions receive.
Funding: Research for the report was supported by funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (under grant agreement No. 852123, AutoNorms project) and from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Tom Watts’ revisions to this report were supported by the funding provided by his Leverhulme Trust Early Career Research Fellowship (ECF-2022-135). We also collaborated with Article 36 in writing the report.
About the authors: Dr Ingvild Bode is Associate Professor at the Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark and a Senior Research Fellow at the Conflict Analysis Research Centre, University of Kent. She is the Principal Investigator of the European Research Council-funded “AutoNorms” project, examining how autonomous weapons systems may change international use of force norms. Her research focuses on understanding processes of normative change, especially through studying practices in relation to the use of force, military Artificial Intelligence, and associated governance demands. More information about Ingvild’s her research is available here.
Dr Tom F.A. Watts is a Leverhulme Trust Early Career Researcher based at the Department of Politics, International Relations, and Philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London. His current project titled “Great Power Competition and Remote Warfare: Change or Continuity in Practice?” (ECF-2022-135) examines the relationship between the use of the strategic practices associated with the concept of remote warfare, the dynamics of change and continuity in contemporary American foreign policy, and autonomy in weapons systems. More information about Tom’s research is available here
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
- …
