MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367281074 · doi:10.18034/ra.v5i1.309

Weapons of Mass Destruction

2017· article· en· W4367281074 on OpenAlexaff
Ananda Majumdar

Bibliographic record

VenueABC Research Alert · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemical warfareNuclear weaponBiological warfarePolitical scienceThermonuclear fusionPoliticsConventionLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the perspective of WMD, the purpose of this essay is to explore and understand the violence of the world in the past and at present, discovers ways to reduce violence for the global development. Global development or International development is an interesting topic in Political Science and or International Relations and my favorite therefore I would like to do further studies as PhD as my preparation to gain knowledge and experience. Chemical Weapon, Biological Weapon are not recognized as modern weaponries while various nuclear, thermonuclear and radiological weapons are modern weaponries. Yet recent killing of North Korean President's step brother in Malaysia Airport by Nerve gas reminds that Chemical weapons still exists and used by countries who are not signatory of the convention. In Syria chemical weapon is using currently.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueABC Research AlertSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207