MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Helsinki Final Act

2024· book-chapter· en· W4408604888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Helsinki Final Act, the Helsinki Accords, and the Helsinki Declaration are all common names for the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, signed at Helsinki, Finland, on August 1, 1975. The document was signed by nearly all the states of Europe (including the Holy See—the Vatican—but excluding Albania and Andorra) as well as by Canada, the United States (under Gerald Ford), and the Soviet Union (under Leonid Brezhnev)—a total of thirty-five countries. A lengthy document, spanning fifty-eight pages in the official English-language copy, the Helsinki Final Act covers a wide array of major political, economic, and social topics, being designed overall to secure peace and stability within and beyond Europe in the context of the cold war. Negotiations began in 1972 and were continued for two years during the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which opened in Helsinki in July 1973 and shifted to Geneva, Switzerland, in September 1973. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Warsaw Pact, and nonaligned states were all represented, giving the act great international weight and significance. The interests of a group of nonparticipating Mediterranean states—Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Syria, and Tunisia—are also recognized in the act, accompanied by statements on the importance of the Mediterranean region in general to the overarching goals of peace and security.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1300.146

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military StrategiesFrench-language works237,207