MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209885090 · doi:10.1080/25751654.2021.1993632

Does the Conference of Disarmament Have a Future?

2021· article· en· W3209885090 on OpenAlex
Paul Meyer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisarmamentTreatyPolitical scienceNegotiationLaw and economicsLawPoliticsCompromiseCredibilityState (computer science)Political economySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) has been in a prolonged state of paralysis. Since its negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, it has not produced any other agreement and has been unable even to agree on a Programme of Work. The dysfunction of the CD has been a product of its extreme version of the consensus rule for decision-making and a counter-productive dynamic among its 65 member states that privileges national preference over the collective good that compromise could yield. The bankruptcy of the CD erodes the credibility of the multilateral disarmament enterprise as does the complicity of its members in perpetuating a diplomatic charade. Moving its core issues out of the CD and into negotiating forums not vulnerable to a de facto “veto” provides an escape route for those states genuinely interested in making progress. Without the political will to engage in creative diplomacy to break out of the CD’s straitjacket, the outlook for the future of the UN’s “single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum” looks bleak.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.288 · 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