Bibliographic record
Abstract
IT IS A GREAT PLEASURE TO BE BACK IN VIENNA, WHERE I SPENT FIVE INTERESTING years as director-general of the United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV), the third headquarters of the United Nations. It is also a great privilege to be the twenty-second person to give the memorial lecture in honor of that remarkable Canadian diplomat and humanitarian John Wendell Holmes. It would be an honor for anyone, but it is an overwhelming one for me and, especially, to address such an audience of distinguished academics since I have no claims to being one of your number. I did start out on an academic career, but in a completely different field. So I do not speak to you in that capacity today but rather as a practitioner, an operator if you like, in the fields of development, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. I should perhaps begin with a few defining words about how I will approach the subject. Security has become the leitmotiv of our daily lives, ranging from major concerns over global terrorism to mundane matters of importance to the individual. It crops up in the most unexpected contexts. Recently, I was astonished to hear on the radio that two distinguished retired US generals had said that one of the greatest threats to US security now was obesity because young people were becoming too fat to enter the armed forces. In another context, the major price that we pay today for security is the restriction of basic human rights, from the surveillance to which we are subjected all day and every day wherever we go, to invasive search procedures at airports and, in the extreme, to the detention of possible suspects without legal process, for instance in Guantanamo Bay. So security today throws up many ethical conundrums. In the UK, recently, there was the case of two Pakistani students accused of planning a major terrorist attack. The evidence against them was apparently overwhelming, but some of it was withheld for security reasons, so they could not be convicted. Instead it was decided that they should be deported to their country of origin. They appealed against that judgment and the Court of Appeal, while recognizing that they constituted a major threat to security in the UK, decreed that they could not be sent back home because their human rights might be abused there. But what about the human rights of the people they might have killed or who might still be in danger? As in so many
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".