To the issue of the formation of peacekeeping idea (on the example of the Suez Crisis of 1956)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Suez Crisis of 1956 is considered one of the most acute regional conflicts of the Cold War period. Two of the five member states of the Security Council were involved in the conflict, who actively exercised the right of “veto” during any attempts at settlement, which paralyzed the existing mechanism for resolving conflicts within the UN. The disagreements of the “great” powers threatened to grow from a diplomatic confrontation into a military one, and conflict from regional to global. The solution was found at one of the sessions of the General Assembly, where Canadian L.B. Pearson presented his idea of resolving the conflict by creating the UN Emergency Forces. The study is devoted to the idea of creating a UN peacekeeping force, the founder of which is Canadian diplomat L.B. Pearson. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of L.B. Pearson in the formation of the idea of peacekeeping, on the example of participation in the settlement of the Suez Crisis. We discuss the historical aspects and conditions for the creation of the UN Emergency Forces, a comparative analysis was conducted with the first observation missions of the UN, substantiate principles, which became the basis for the functioning of peacekeeping forces. We draw conclusion that it was L.B. Pearson’s ideas that contributed to the resolution of one of the most acute crises of the second half of the 20th century, and the creation of peacekeeping forces proved the effectiveness of the UN in maintaining international peace and security, conflict resolution, and also laid the foundation for modern peacekeeping.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".