Nuclear Development and the Shaping of an Independent Argentine Foreign Policy, 1950-1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the Cold War, there was one remarkable exception to the decline of scientific activity in Argentina, namely the nuclear sector. For decades, the Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA) and the two dozen private and semi-private companies that dominated the Argentine nuclear sector continued to be strong, both from the scientific and administrative point of view. According to Etel Solingen, this was a "paradigmatic example of a maverick agency taking advantage of macro-political chaos... to impose its own institutional agenda." [1] To be sure, nuclear science in Argentina was not immune to political and economic upheaval. But, protected and nurtured by CNEA, which in turn was relatively immune from political pressures, nuclear science thrived. Argentina became a leading training center for scientists and technologists from underdeveloped countries. Moreover, nuclear science was a driving force behind foreign policies throughout the Cold War era in some key areas that have not yet been addressed by current research dealing with the Argentine nuclear sector. Most investigators have tended to isolate nuclear questions from more general problems of international strategy; they have not assessed the major repercussions of nuclear issues for Argentine foreign policy during the Cold War period
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".