Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the first time since the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) came into force in 1997, new compounds will be added to the convention’s list of toxic chemicals. At The Hague on Nov. 27, delegates to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) accepted two proposals to add new chemicals to the convention by consensus. The moment was greeted by spontaneous applause. Canada, the Netherlands, and the US submitted the first proposal in January 2019. It incorporates two large families of Novichok organophosphorus nerve agents, including the chemical A-230. Russia moved to expand the list to add an additional Novichok agent and a family of carbamates that are chemically unrelated but have a similar biochemical basis for their toxicity. The OPCW Technical Secretariat will prepare a merged text of the proposals and send it to all members of the CWC, says OPCW director general Fernando Arias. The changes will
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.167 | 0.090 |
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".