MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arms Control and the Myth of Peaceful Uses in Outer Space

2024· book-chapter· en· W4392022359 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica West

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArms controlMythologyOuter spaceSpace (punctuation)Control (management)Political scienceComputer scienceHistoryLawArtificial intelligenceClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter considers the concept of peace in outer space, which has been fundamental to the development of its governance, yet, despite early indications of success, non-armament has been an intractable challenges of space governance. The prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) has been on the international agenda for decades with little progress. Existing explanations for this are unconvincing. Drawing on theory of political myth, the chapter contends that the failure to restrict weapon use in space is a consequence of an abiding myth of the peacefulness of outer space. While there is some evidence to suggest that this emphasis on the peaceful use of outer space has made the deployment of weapons in space taboo for most, it is also true that a general belief in this myth has permitted some space actors to engage in military competition, cloaked by a fog of peace.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207