Bibliographic record
Abstract
The slogan “permanence with accountability” emerged at the NPT’s 1995 Review and Extension Conference as a way of characterizing the outcome of that conference – the indefinite extension of the treaty coupled with enhanced means of ensuring accountability for the implementation of its provisions. Today some 25 years later, the validity of this concept is in question. Consistent efforts by the non-nuclear weapon states party to the NPT to persuade the treaty’s five nuclear weapon states to be more forthcoming in reporting to the NPT membership on their implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments has yielded little progress. Even the modest goal of accepting a standardized reporting format and periodicity for submitting implementation reports has eluded supporters. In the absence of a detailed and comparable data base how can NPT states parties effectively hold nuclear weapon states accountable? Amid the other serious stresses on the NPT in the leadup to its next Review Conference, a failure to address the long-standing plea for greater transparency as a prerequisite for accountability could sap the treaty of much of its remaining authority.
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 | 0.167 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".