Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 1925, the Assembly of the League of Nations called for the summoning of a global Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments in order at last to put into practice the great hopes for world disarmament that had emerged from the cataclysm of the Great War. When the conference’s Preparatory Commission set to work early in 1926, it was amidst widespread expectations that it would complete its task within a matter of months and that the great world disarmament conference to follow would itself meet in 1927 to ratify a final disarmament treaty. But a snail’s pace of progress defeated all such hopes: the commission only produced its draft treaty in December 1930 and the conference itself did not open until February 1932. The combined membership of the many organizations that made presentations at the conference’s opening public session was some 200 million people, approximately 10% of the world population at the time. Despite the central importance accorded to disarmament as a test of the worth of the new League of Nations, and indeed for many a shorthand expression for a guarantee of lasting peace, there has never been a comprehensive historical treatment of the work of the League on disarmament. This paper draws upon extensive research in the archives of the League of Nations, Britain, France, the United States, Australia and Canada and is part of a larger project on the history of the international disarmament process between 1899 and 1945. It will examine why the path towards agreement over international disarmament went so far awry during the later 1920s, despite the favourable diplomatic atmosphere of the so-called ‘Locarno era’. In particular, it focuses upon the work of the Preparatory Commission for the world disarmament conference, a site of competing nationalist, internationalist and transnationalist agendas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".