MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W295511226

China's Evolving Nuclear Posture. Part 1 - Background and Benchmark

2011· article· en· W295511226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald A. Neill

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaDoctrineScope (computer science)Nuclear weaponNuclear strategyNuclear energy policyBaseline (sea)Nuclear ethicsTrajectoryPolitical scienceBenchmark (surveying)International tradeNuclear powerComputer scienceLawBusinessGeographyNuclear physicsPhysicsCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : This paper is the first part of a larger study the goal of which is to determine the trajectory of China's nuclear weapons policy, strategy, capability and doctrine. It discusses the origins, scope and methodology of the proposed study, and provides an overview of the evolution of US nuclear strategy in order to establish a baseline for discussing why, and to what extent, China's nuclear evolution has differed from US nuclear thinking. In doing so it sets the stage for further papers examining the evolution of China's nuclear strategy; the status of its strategic nuclear forces; and the drivers of China's declaratory policy, nuclear strategy, and nuclear doctrine. The study will terminate with a comprehensive report discussing the apparent trajectory of Chinese nuclear strategy and capability and the implications thereof for Canada and its allies, and will suggest directions for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207