From New York to Vienna: The Genesis of the IAEA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the Agreed Declaration of November 15, 1945, U.S. President \nHarry Truman, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, and Canadian \nPrime Minister Mackenzie King stated that they had conferred to \nconsider "international action": • To prevent the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes; \nand • To promote the use of recent and future advances in scientific \nknowledge, particularly in the utilization of atomic energy, for \npeaceful and humanitarian ends. I As noted in the preceding chapter, the parties recognized that "[n]o \nsystem of safeguards can be devised [that] will of itself provide an \neffective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation \nbent on aggression."2 Nevertheless, they expressed their willingness \nto exchange scientists and scientific information involving "practical \nindustrial application of atomic energy with any reciprocating member of the United Nations just as soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes can be devised."3 They \nalso called for the United Nations to establish a commission to make \nspecific proposals : • For extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific \ninformation for peaceful ends; • For control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure \nits use only for peaceful purposes; The United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) was \nduly established by General Assembly Resolution 1, on January 24, \n1946. Its origins were in the draft resolution agreed to in Moscow, \nwhich was later cosponsored by France and China, so it was not \nsurprising that the UN General Assembly Resolution&s;s terms of reference were identical with those specified in the Moscow and Three \nNation Agreed Declarations. The UNAEC became the forum for the In the expectation that the United Nations would act favorably on \nthe proposal to establish the UNAEC, Secretary of State James F. \nByrnes on January 7, 1946, directed Undersecretary of State Dean \nAcheson to chair a committee to formulate U.S. policy on international control of atomic energy. Acheson&s;s committee, which included \nVannevar Bush, James B. Conant, Gen. Leslie R. Groves, and John \nJ. McCloy, named a Board of Consultants. Headed by David E. \nLilienthal, the prestigious board members were J. Robert Oppenheimer, Charles Bernard, Charles Thomas, and Harry Winne. The \nresult of the committee&s;s frenetic work, known as the Acheson-Lilienthal Report, was completed in mid-March and released on March \n28, 1946.6 The report, in essence, proposed an international authority that would monopolize (own and manage, and not merely inspect) \nall dangerous atomic activities, while leaving safe and productive \nactivities open to individual countries and private interests. As we \nhave seen, the report made clear the inadequacies of inspection (that \nis, safeguards) alone, while recognizing that inspections would have \nto be a vital component of any system of international control.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».