Bibliographic record
Abstract
"NATO needs to define its global purpose if it wishes to address global threats. What is the prospect of NATO going global and how will it affect NATO's future course? In the run-up to the NATO Summit in Riga in November 2006, a debate on both sides of the Atlantic has now evolved over NATO's global engagement that touches on the very foundations of NATO's original purpose and definition. Critically, the debate is no longer about wether NATO should go 'out of area or out of business' but whether the Alliance should enlarge on a global level from Vancouver to Tokyo and Wellington. In order to place this debate into the recent historical context of the Alliance, this article examines U.S.-European security relations since September 11 within the institutional framework of NATO and, subsequently, draws conclusions for the future role of the Alliance. As the transatlantic community faces security threats of inherently global nature such as internationally organized terrorism and crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, collapse or lack of state structures in certain regions, and ruptures in the stable supply of energy resources, NATO will have to define its role as a global security actor if it wishes to avoid becoming a mere service provider of security." (author's abstract)
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".