Regretterions-nous vraiment le Traité sur la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires ?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Traité sur la non-prolifération des armes nucléaires ( tnp ) connaît une crise profonde. Mais regretterions-nous vraiment sa disparition ? Même sans ce traité, il demeure improbable qu’une multitude de pays se dotent d’armes atomiques. De plus, son effondrement signifierait la fin du désarmement nucléaire. Mais l’absence du tnp se ferait tout de même sentir : il serait plus difficile, voire impossible d’établir des coalitions internationales contre d’éventuelles nouvelles puissances nucléaires ; la transparence et la confiance disparaîtraient à un moment où de plus en plus de pays semblent s’intéresser à l’utilisation pacifique de la technologie atomique ; l’idée même de coopération entre États pour mettre en place des mesures de restriction d’accès aux armes et aux technologies les plus destructrices à des fins militaires serait oblitérée.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".