Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article attempts to evaluate the balance of United Nations accomplishments in the field of peace and security since 1945. The first part deals with the elements one has to take into consideration to properly evaluate such performance. These are what the Organization ought to do (its objectives), what it could do (its means) and what it has done (the kinds of activities). In the second part, each one of these elements is examined. About the objectives, the article distinguishes between manifest and latent objectives and it argues that the first ones have not changed when the second ones have much changed. About the means, the article analyzes the powers given the UN and the way its principal organs exercise them. It traces the evolution of the roles of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretary general and the International Court of Justice. Concerning the kinds of activities, the article uses a typology developed by H.K. Jacobson to argue that the main function of the UN is a "verbal" or informational one, that the normative function especially in its collective legitimization aspect is the second most important, that the rule supervisory function accounts or few activities, and, that the operational function is more developed than it may appear. The article concludes that the balance is a positive one pointing to the flexibility, the adaptability and the continued usefulness of the UN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; 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".