Les conceptions chinoises en matière de relations internationales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author identifies the variations in Peking's foreign policy since 1949 as the variable outcome of an equation involving stable principles and changing contexts. First, she identifies those principles that from the Chinese perspective are the guidelines of their foreign policy. Second, she attempts to demonstrate by reference to practice that these principles, far from constituting restrictive norms, are adapted to situations in a manner to ensure the perpetuity of China. Informed by an ages-old diplomatic tradition, the essentially pragmatic Chinese leadership interpret changes in the international context in the light of long-term objectives. These may be summarized by two concepts : the safeguarding of peace and the emancipation of humanity. By taking these considerations into account the author studies the foreign policies of the Chinese People's Republic that would appear to be the most susceptible of demonstrating the conceptions of its leaders with respect to international relations. In particular, the strategic position of the China of the 80s is commented upon within this analytical framework. The author concludes from her observations that Chinese behaviour on the international scène may be better understood by considering the goals pursued rather than the statements of principles put forward.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".