Security dialogue or talking shop? The Corfu Process under Kazakhstan's OSCE Chairmanship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the Corfu Process, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) wants to regain the key position it was believed to have lost - namely, its role as a forum for broad and inclusive dialogue on security issues from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Yet the challenges are daunting: while the Corfu Process does foster cooperation, it has not yet succeeded in increasing security in Europe. If the basic normative dissent between East and West is not confronted openly but instead just ignored, the risk is high that the process will deteriorate into a trivial discussion group, and that under Kazakhstan's OSCE Chairmanship, it will even undermine the OSCE Acquis. The organisation can only eliminate the deficiencies in the European security architecture if it succeeds in focusing the Corfu Process on a concrete agenda and transforming it into a substantive security dialog
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 | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".