After the North Korean and Iraqi disclosures, the
Bibliographic record
Abstract
progress on safeguards development. Pragmati-cally, the Agency lacked any hands-on experi-ence comparable to that of the principal nu-clear suppliers of the day (the US, Canada, Great Britain, France) and when it became nec-essary to move ahead with an operational sys-tem, the Agency wisely chose to do so incre-mentally, starting with small and simple facilities and gradually, as needed, moving to larger and more complex ones. The conclusion of the NPT in 1968 took interna-tional safeguards to a new level by obligating all non-nuclear-weapon state parties to conclude a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA covering all of the state’s peaceful nuclear activities, present and future. This was followed by the establishment of safeguards committee by the IAEA Board of Governors to advise on the contents of safeguards agreements to be con-cluded between non-nuclear-weapon states and the IAEA. The committee developed a document entitled “The Structure and Content of Agreements between the Agency and States Required in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapon ”- was ap-proved in 1972 and became the model for com-prehensive safeguards agreements. Known as Agency Information Circular INFCIRC/153. The 153-type safeguards are the basis for, and cen-tral to, the strengthened safeguards system be-ing put in place. There are three main elements of the safeguard activities carried out under the 153-type safe-guards, sometimes called “traditional safe-guards ” include nuclear material accountancy; containment and surveillance measures; and
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.031 |
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".