MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032562686 · doi:10.20884/1.ins.2020.7.1.2224

U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Iranian Nuclear Threat from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump Administration

2020· article· en· W3032562686 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anak Agung Banyu Perwita, Muhammad Ilham Razak

Bibliographic record

VenueInsignia Journal of International Relations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Atomic Energy AgencyConcordia UniversityUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsForeign policyAdministration (probate law)Political scienceNuclear energy policyNuclear weaponForeign relationsForeign policy analysisPublic administrationLawPoliticsNuclear power

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iranian nuclear threat remains one of the most pressing issue throughout the history of US foreign policy. Ever since the islamic revolution occured in Iran in 1979, Iran hostile activities in Middle East has been a major threat for US security interest, in particular when Iran started to build its ambition to build its nuclear weapon. Having said that, this article aims to discuss US foreign policy toward the threat of Iranian nuclear program from Bill Clinton administration until Trump Administration. By using thematic analysis from Braun and Clarke, this article would scrutinize the internal and external factors of US foreign policy toward Iran and then seeks to understand the change and continuity of US foreign policy from Bill Clinton until Trump administration. From the analysis, it was found that US foreign policy has been influenced a lot by its internal and external factors, resulting in different responses of US foreign policy in each administration. Moreover, US foreign policy has been consistent to put Iranian nuclear threat as its major security threat despite differ in its foreign policy. However, the withdrawal of US under Trump in Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) deal has provided an inconsistency of US foreign policy with its previous administration.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsignia Journal of International RelationsSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207