The Dutch denuclearization process after the Cold War.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When NATO was established the world was in a different place. The world had seen the use of nuclear weapons in Japan for the first time and was confronted with the devastating consequences of these weapons. NATO was established as an Alliance between the United States, Canada, and European countries. Meanwhile, the Cold War had started between the United States on one side and the Soviet Union on the other side. To ensure the safety of the European counterparts, NATO decided to establish the nuclear sharing arrangement that would provide certain countries in Europe with nuclear weapons. The Netherlands is one of these countries. This was in the Netherlands’ own security interests, which are heavily influenced by NATO’s security policies. After the end of the Cold War, there was no direct threat and therefore, no direct need to keep these nuclear weapons. However, the Netherlands has been unable to denuclearize. It will use securitization theory as a theoretical framework to try to understand the denuclearization process. This thesis will analyze the denuclearization debate in the Netherlands and what role nuclear weapons play in Dutch security policy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".