From New York to Vienna: The Genesis of the IAEA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Agreed Declaration of November 15, 1945, U.S. President \nHarry Truman, British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, and Canadian \nPrime Minister Mackenzie King stated that they had conferred to \nconsider "international action": • To prevent the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes; \nand • To promote the use of recent and future advances in scientific \nknowledge, particularly in the utilization of atomic energy, for \npeaceful and humanitarian ends. I As noted in the preceding chapter, the parties recognized that "[n]o \nsystem of safeguards can be devised [that] will of itself provide an \neffective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation \nbent on aggression."2 Nevertheless, they expressed their willingness \nto exchange scientists and scientific information involving "practical \nindustrial application of atomic energy with any reciprocating member of the United Nations just as soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes can be devised."3 They \nalso called for the United Nations to establish a commission to make \nspecific proposals : • For extending between all nations the exchange of basic scientific \ninformation for peaceful ends; • For control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure \nits use only for peaceful purposes; The United Nations Atomic Energy Commission (UNAEC) was \nduly established by General Assembly Resolution 1, on January 24, \n1946. Its origins were in the draft resolution agreed to in Moscow, \nwhich was later cosponsored by France and China, so it was not \nsurprising that the UN General Assembly Resolution&s;s terms of reference were identical with those specified in the Moscow and Three \nNation Agreed Declarations. The UNAEC became the forum for the In the expectation that the United Nations would act favorably on \nthe proposal to establish the UNAEC, Secretary of State James F. \nByrnes on January 7, 1946, directed Undersecretary of State Dean \nAcheson to chair a committee to formulate U.S. policy on international control of atomic energy. Acheson&s;s committee, which included \nVannevar Bush, James B. Conant, Gen. Leslie R. Groves, and John \nJ. McCloy, named a Board of Consultants. Headed by David E. \nLilienthal, the prestigious board members were J. Robert Oppenheimer, Charles Bernard, Charles Thomas, and Harry Winne. The \nresult of the committee&s;s frenetic work, known as the Acheson-Lilienthal Report, was completed in mid-March and released on March \n28, 1946.6 The report, in essence, proposed an international authority that would monopolize (own and manage, and not merely inspect) \nall dangerous atomic activities, while leaving safe and productive \nactivities open to individual countries and private interests. As we \nhave seen, the report made clear the inadequacies of inspection (that \nis, safeguards) alone, while recognizing that inspections would have \nto be a vital component of any system of international control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".