MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598041009

The Geopolitics of Chinese Energy Security

2010· article· en· W1598041009 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kelly James Ogle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of military and strategic studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy Security and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy securityGeopoliticsChinaPoliticsEnergy policyEnvironmental securityEnergy supplyStewardship (theology)BusinessSustainabilityAgency (philosophy)Political scienceEnergy (signal processing)International tradeLawSociologyRenewable energyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One way of understanding the modern world is to view it as broken up into rival political and economic blocs that compete for resources and markets through political, economic, and military power. Today, governments of energy consuming nations worldwide are concerned about the security of their energy needs more so than at any other time since the oil crises of the 1970s. Additionally, issues such as environmental stewardship, corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and human rights are factors in the contemporary energy debate. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2008 China produced 190 million metric tons (Mt) of oil, unfortunately the Chinese were net importers of 159 Mt of oil. What energy policies is China adopting to bridge this gap, and what does this mean for the United States? This paper examines various aspects and inter-relationships of energy security through a geopolitical lens, beginning with a discussion of the supply and demand of crude oil, and an attempt to understand energy security. It also places China in an evolving world energy matrix, examine China’s relationship with the United States and the future of Chinese/U.S energy and security policy concerns, and discusses the future of Chinese energy policy and security.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of military and strategic studiesSame topicGlobal Energy Security and PolicyFrench-language works237,207