Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The first chapter of the volume draws on the country chapters to offer a number of reflection points on the current nature of the Alliance and, most specifically, its relevance and cohesion. It first builds a typology of allies based on how they see, and behave within, the Alliance. Three categories of ally are identified: the ‘non-NATO-aligned with a broad security agenda’, a group composed of the United States, France, and Turkey; the ‘NATO-aligned with a Russian-centric security agenda’, a group composed of the three Baltic States, Norway, Poland, and Romania; and the ‘NATO-aligned with a non-Russian-centric security agenda’, which include the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain. Second, the chapter draws on the subsequent country analysis to identify seven key findings that characterize contemporary NATO: these range from the persistent need for NATO, the nature of the bilateral link with the United States, and the centrality of collective defence, to the debate about task expansion, the existence of alternatives to NATO, the importance of values, and the level of strategic thinking within allies. Third, the chapter reflects on those findings to assess the level of relevance and cohesion that the Alliance enjoys. In many ways, NATO’s relevance and cohesion are being challenged by a complex security environment, yet it is largely this complexity that makes the Alliance still essential to its Nations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".