Export Controls: Regulatory Change Needed to Comply with Missile Technology Licensing Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The United States and several major trading partners created the Missile Technology Control Regime in 1987 to control the spread of missile technology. To carry out the U.S. commitment to the agreement, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1991, which amended two U.S. export control statutes: the Export Administration Act and the Arms Export Control Act. Two federal agencies, the Department of Commerce and the Department of State, are responsible for implementing the regulations for controlling missile technology exports. This report discusses whether the regulations for controlling the export of Missile Technology Control Regime items (1) are consistent with U.S. law and (2) provide a consistent U.S. policy on the control of missile technology. GAO found that Commerce's export regulations are inconsistent with an amendment to the Export Administration Act that requires an individual export license for all controlled dual-use missile equipment and technology to all countries. Commerce's regulations do not require licenses for the export of controlled missile equipment and technology to Canada. Commerce did not cite any section of this statute or its legislative history to justify the inconsistency between its regulations and the statutory requirement. GAO found that State's export regulations are consistent with the amendment to the Arms Export Control Act. The inconsistency between Commerce's regulatory exemption and the Export Administration Act, along with different interpretations by Commerce and State of congressional intent, contributes to a divided U.S. government policy toward Canada and toward missile proliferation."
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 | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".