Bibliographic record
Abstract
It gives me great pleasure to introduce this volume on UN Security Council-mandated sanctions.When the Canadian government gave thought, in the mid-1990s, to how it might best focus its efforts during its next term on the UN Security Council, it concluded that working to improve the effectiveness of UN sanctions regimes would be a fitting and useful priority.Of the very few instruments available to the Council to encourage implementation of its decisions, sanctions are the most frequently used.It was clear that several of the sanctions regimes mandated by the Council earlier in the 1990s were not working well.Some, indeed, seemed counterproductive.Canada's House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which I then chaired, recognized this important factor in its report of April 2000 on sanctions against Iraq and urged the establishment of sanctions regimes that are more targeted at those responsible for the conditions that the UN seeks to change.On taking its seat in the Council in January 1999, Canada agreed to chair the Council committee on sanctions against the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola.In carrying out this responsibility, Ambassador Robert Fowler and his colleagues revolutionized the Council's approach to sanctions issues.They showed that greater effectiveness was possible, if a willingness existed to recognize the importance of economic factors in contemporary conflicts and if the Council was prepared to "name and shame" those governments, nonstate actors, and individuals actively undermining sanctions regimes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.579 | 0.565 |
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".