La réglementation américaine en matière de contrôle des armes chimiques et biologiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After identifying the role of the Australia Group which is a multilateral body designed to control export of sensitive chemicals, as well as « equipment » and « technical data » designed to fabricate chemical or bacteriological weapons, this study briefly overviews U.S. policy in terms of export controls, and then attempts to review the current U.S. regulations on chemical and bacteriological weapons. With regard to chemical weapons, the analysis goes back to the Iran-Irak war and traces the evolution of the various controls imposed on chemicals. With the March 13, 1991 decision, export controls exist on 50 chemicals and the warning list has now been reduced to zero. With regards to biological weapons, a whole new list of controls is now being discussed within the Australia Group. A list of 29 countries has been drawn up and the U.S. hope that the Australia Group will adopt similar controls when it meets in December 1991. The article also contains five annexes : the classification of groups countries for export control reasons ; a list of countries under foreign policy controls ; the classification of microorganisms according to their class and degree of pathogenicity; a list of the fifty precursors under control; and the chronological evolution of the U.S. controls imposed on chemicals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".