The Q-NPT: Redefining Nuclear Energy Governance for Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global peace, security, and sustainable energy development depend on effective nuclear energy governance. While the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has served as a cornerstone in this domain, it faces challenges such as trust deficits, inequitable access to nuclear technologies, and regional instability. This paper proposes the Qudrat-Ullah Nuclear Peace and Trust (Q-NPT) framework, a dynamic implementation roadmap designed to address these issues. The framework focuses on fostering trust among stakeholders, ensuring equitable access to nuclear technologies, and promoting inclusivity in governance structures. A key theoretical contribution is the integration of trust-building measures with sustainable energy transitions, highlighting nuclear energy’s role in decarbonization and global energy security. The paper outlines actionable pathways for implementing the Q-NPT framework, including enhanced oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), capacity-building initiatives, and training programs to enable safe and sustainable nuclear cooperation, particularly in developing nations. By operationalizing nuclear programs through this approach, the Q-NPT framework aligns nuclear energy governance with global sustainable energy objectives.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".