El valor de un título: el Tratado de Prohibición del Arma Nuclear y su impacto en el régimen de no proliferación.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLa reciente conclusion de un Tratado de Prohibicion del Arma Nuclear abre un nuevo capitulo, lleno de incognitas, en la historia reciente del desarme y del regimen de no proliferacion. Se trata de un instrumento sui generis, en la medida en que los Estados que lo negociaron carecen del arma que es objeto de la prohibicion. El proceso que ha desembocado en este nuevo tratado comparte, ademas, algunos rasgos con dos procesos en el ambito de las armas convencionales de efecto humanitario indiscriminado: el que culmino en la Convencion de Minas Antipersona (Convencion de Ottawa) y el que dio lugar a la Convencion de Municiones en Racimo (Convencion de Oslo). En este articulo se analizan las semejanzas y diferencias entre dichos procesos con objeto de dar respuesta a la siguiente pregunta: ?es posible trasponer al mundo del desarme nuclear el espiritu, dinamicas y objetivos de las llamadas «convenciones de estados afines»? EnglishThe recent conclusion of a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons opens a new chapter in the recent history of nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation regime. It is a “sui generis instrument”, since countries taking part in the negotiations do not possess the weapons that are covered by the convention In addition, the process leading to the adoption of this new treaty shares some characteristics with two conventions in the field of conventional weapons with nondiscriminated humanitarian impact: the Mine-Ban Convention (or Ottawa Convention) and the Cluster Munition Convention (or Oslo Convention). This article focuses on differences and similarities between the three processes, with the aim of giving an answer to the following question: can “like-minded states conventions” – their spirit, dynamics and goals- be efficiently adapted to the rules of nuclear disarmament?
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".