O Brasil e a proliferação de submarinos de propulsão nuclear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brazil’s negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency to draw up safeguards for the development of a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine will, according to several analysts, set a precedent that will lead to a proliferation of non-nuclear-weapon states conducting such programmes, initiatives that the nuclear-weapon states have opposed on the grounds of the risk of surreptitious manufacture of nuclear weapons. Therefore, this possible proliferation motivated this research, the aim of which was to analyse the states seeking these naval means, focusing on their strategic motivation, their political context, their possible compatibility with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime and the presumed possibilities for the use of Brazilian practice that will result from the ongoing negotiations. The analysis found that the obstacles arising from the high cost, technical complexity, lack of will or internal political definition (Japan, Argentina and Canada) and international pressures due to commitments made (South Korea and Iran) lead to the conclusion that the number of suitors may increase, but not characterising proliferation, and only Brazil and Australia can conduct such programmes in the medium term, with Brazil not being hampered by commitments made, because it has legitimised its programme in all those it has signed, from the outset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".