Qui sont nos ennemis? Qui sont nos amis? La presse pakistanaise et ses perceptions des attitudes et politiques de quatre grandes puissance 1958-1965.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing content analysis methodology, this paper studies Pakistani press perceptions of external sources of threat and support covering the Period 1958-1965. From the literature on Pakistani foreign policy, seven specific hypotheses are extracted for testing: 1 - during the period 1958-1965, India was perceived to be the major threat to Pakistan ; 2 - the perception of India as the major threat increased sharply from 1962 onwards; 3 - in 1959 China was perceived to be a greater threat to Pakistan than India was; 4 - the Soviet Union was perceived to be the major threat in 1958, a significant but secondary threat in 1959, the main threat again in 1960, and an insignificant threat from 1961 onwards; 5 - at no time during the period 1958-1965 was the United States perceived to be a threat to Pakistan; 6 - the respective policies of China, the US.S.R., and the U.S. towards South Asia in general and on the Kashmir issue in particular, played a major part in determining Pakistan's attitudes toward these states; 7 - U.S. arms aid to India in 1962 resulted in a major Pakistani disillusionment with the United States and this was accompanied by more positive Pakistani views toward the US.S.R. and China. Our data drawn from front page news stores and editorials appearing in a sample of the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, confirm in general terms hypotheses 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, but fall to confirm hypotheses 3 and 4. Overall, the data point to the significance of the Sino-Indian border war in the fall of 1962 as a crucial turning point in Pakistan 's foreign policy alignments. Specifically, we see evidence of a turning away from the United States, combined with a movement toward China. Attitudes toward the Soviet Union were ambivalent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".