NATO: from Cold War to Ukraine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sten Rynning's new book provides a comprehensive history of why and how NATO was founded. The book outlines and navigates the challenges that the alliance has faced over the decades, bringing the analysis up to 2024, two years into Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Rynning's main argument is that NATO is at its best when it focuses on its core role: a defensive alliance and a guarantor of security for Europe. Rynning is a professor at the University of Southern Denmark, and one of the foremost NATO experts writing about the alliance today. He can draw on a long list of peer-reviewed journal articles and books that cover various aspects of NATO's history and its contemporary policy challenges. Rynning has also engaged with policy-makers throughout his career, and this is reflected in the target audience for his well-researched history of NATO. Indeed, he provides policy-makers with some suggestions on how member states can address some of today's challenges.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 it