MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980266395 · doi:10.4324/9780429039119-14

Controlling the Proliferation of Missiles

2019· book-chapter· en· W2980266395 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Lise Hartman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNuclear Issues and Defense
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter provides an overview of a number of issues involved in assessing some of the uses and dangers involved in the proliferation of ballistic missiles and evaluates the efforts to control their spread. One of the questions that constantly arises is the military significance of ballistic missiles as compared with other forms of weapons delivery, particularly aircraft. In terms of pay load, aircraft typically carry greater and more diversified ordnance, especially of nuclear and chemical weapons. In terms of accuracy, most Third World missiles are very inaccurate compared with those in the industrialized world. In 1982 the Reagan administration instituted the NSDD-70, which comprised an examination of the ways in which ballistic missiles might be controlled. This culminated the following year in negotiations between the United States and Canada, Italy, France, Japan and the United Kingdom essentially to formulate the Missile Technology Control Regime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Issues and DefenseFrench-language works237,207