Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For more than forty years, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has provided major security benefits to the international community; however, the treaty is suffering from internal and external pressures, and benign neglect on the part of its members is undermining its authority. To ensure the treaty's continued viability, it is time for member states to start showing the NPT the respect it deserves and to renew their commitments to its fundamental purposes. Achieving this requires remedial action in at least four areas of vulnerability: reinvigorating nuclear disarmament; strengthening nonproliferation; overcoming the NPT's institutional deficit; and fostering a rapprochement between NPT and non-NPT states that does not abandon the goal of treaty universalization. There is still time before the 2010 NPT Review Conference for concerted action to restore the NPT's vitality and for the United States to resume its leadership role on behalf of the treaty and its membership. Keywords: NonproliferationTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weaponsinternational securitytreaty regimes Acknowledgements DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. Notes 1. Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (2010 PrepCom), “Chairman's Working Paper,” containing the factual summary from the first Preparatory Committee of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, NPT/CONF2010/PC.1/WP.78, May 11, 2007. 2. For an elaboration of this problem, see Paul Meyer, “Is There Any Fizz Left in the Fissban? Prospects for a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty,” Arms Control Today, December 2007, p. 18. 3. 2010 PrepCom, “Chairman's Working Paper,” NPT/CONF2010/PC.1/WP.78, May 11, 2007, paragraph 29. 4. Fiona Simpson, “Reforming the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Time is Running Out,” Arms Control Today, September 2008, <www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_09/Simpson>. 5. For one official proposal on institutional reform, see “Overcoming the Institutional Deficit of the NPT,” working paper submitted by Canada, NPT/CONF./PCIII/WP.1, April 5, 2004. 6. All figures from, “Transparency and Accountability: NPT Reporting 2002–2007,” Project Ploughshares, April 2008. 7. 2000 NPT Review Conference, Final Document, May 2000, NPT/CONF.2000/28, Part I, Article I, para. 8. 8. 2010 PrepCom, “Chairman's Working Paper,” NPT/CONF.2010/PC.II.WP.43, May 9, 2008, paragraph 7, p. 2. 9. “Arms Control Today Presidential Q&A: President-Elect Barack Obama,” Arms Control Today, December 2008, <www.armscontrol.org/2008election>. 10. For a good synopsis of the summit, see Anya Loukianova and Miles Pomper, “Obama's Moscow Visit Highlights Both Progress and Obstacles in U.S.–Russian Nuclear Relations,” James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, CNS Featured Stories, July 10, 2009, <www.CNS.miis.edu/stories/090710_obama_moscow.htm>.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it