Bibliographic record
Abstract
The state of Australia has often championed itself as a good global citizen and middle power who is committed to the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. Over the years, it's Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers have consistently maintained positions advocating irreversible reductions in the numbers of nuclear weapons held by all nuclear-annexed states. Additionally, they have regularly emphasized Australia's commitment to the NPT as the cornerstone of global peace and security, and to pursuing practical, realistic measures for nuclear disarmament. As this article will argue, however, and notwithstanding participation in a range of initiatives, Australia maintains a somewhat veiled paradoxical approach where it does not: challenge the purposes and value of nuclear weapons, question the legality and legitimacy of such weapons, nor the logic and practice of nuclear deterrence. It leaves nuclear agency entirely in the hands of the possessor states, compliantly accepting that they can safely manage nuclear risks by appropriate adjustments to warhead numbers, nuclear doctrines and force postures. In more forthright terms, Australia has become a laggard, a hedging player, and in real terms, a middle power participatory state where nuclear disarmament appears to be of lower priority than bolstering and indefinitely sustaining the legitimacy and credibility of deterrence. As such, and to prevent a dangerous backslide, the article suggests what Australia could do more of in the form of bolder collaborative efforts with like-minded states like Canada, Japan and Norway to explore strategic stability at low numbers of nuclear weapons and the conditions for serious steps towards 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".