La destrucción asegurada: la potencia de fuego, el cambio climático y los dilemas de seguridad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las nociones tradicionales de un dilema de seguridad deben actualizarse para abordar las inseguridades que surgen a medida que se acelera el cambio climático. Los dilemas de seguridad solían centrarse en la sospecha mutua, que provocaba la producción de armas para mejorar las capacidades de potencia de fuego en busca de seguridad por parte de un Estado, que a su vez desencadenaba respuestas de otros y las carreras armamentistas resultantes. Ahora, las consecuencias no deseadas de la aplicación cada vez mayor de la “potencia de fuego” civil en forma de combustión de combustibles fósiles para “asegurar” los modos de vida modernos, sugieren que esto ahora está poniendo en peligro a las sociedades en todas partes. Se necesita urgentemente un cambio de paradigma en la concepción de la seguridad para actualizar el pensamiento tradicional para enfrentar las nuevas circunstancias de un mundo perturbado por el clima.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".