Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Initially, it seemed that the investigative power of the Security Council would be merely ancillary, especially considering that Article 34 of the United Nations Charter, which establishes it, limits both its scope and function. On one hand, the Security Council can only investigate international disputes, i.e., those that could lead to disagreement between two or more states. On the other hand, the investigation should be limited to determining whether the dispute under the Council’s consideration poses a threat to international peace and security. However, nearly 80 years later, the practice of the Security Council reveals a trend toward an expansive interpretation of its investigative power. This power has shifted towards specific modalities. The purpose of the Security Council’s investigative power is now twofold. First, it aims to determine whether the continuation of the dispute is likely to threaten international peace and security. Second, it ensures that the conflict does not eventually escalate into a threat to peace or an act of aggression that would require coercive measures under Chapter vii of the Charter. The expansive interpretation of Article 34 has thus transformed the Security Council’s investigative power into a comprehensive and adaptable mechanism, capable of integrating both conciliation and coercion functions. By broadening the scope of its investigations, the Security Council can simultaneously engage in peaceful resolution efforts and, if necessary, pave the way for coercive actions should the threat persist or worsen.
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 | 0.066 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".