Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2020 Review Conference on the Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation of Weapons (NPT) will mark a benchmark 50th anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty, which is considered the cornerstone of non-proliferation. A Preparatory Committee for the Review Conferences, which are held every five years, normally holds a two-week session in each of the three years leading up to the review conference. Three such ‘PrepComs’ convened in Vienna in 2017, in Geneva in 2018 and in New York in 2019. All indications point to a contentious review in 2020. Over the years of nine Review Conferences, States Parties have probably spent more time discussing Article VI of the Treaty than any other. It causes the most aggravation because it calls for pursuing negotiations towards disarmament, and a treaty on general and complete disarmament, which some see as tangible and others see as an elusive goal. Over the years, most States Parties have believed that the first step in that direction is the entry into force of a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). States Parties decided in 1995 to extend the NPT indefinitely, with the understanding that a CTBT, a Middle East Zone free of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and other conditions would be met. In keeping with these demands, and after generations of calls for a comprehensive nuclear test ban, negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament led to the signing of the CTBT at the United Nations in September 1996. Twenty-three years later there is a global norm against nuclear test explosions, the verification regime is more than 90% complete, and large-scale on-site inspection exercises in Kazakhstan and Jordan have demonstrated that those provisions in the treaty are effective. However, eight of the 44 countries specified in the CTBT that must ratify for it to enter into force have yet to do so. How to square this circle remains problematic.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.035 |
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".