MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1647622621 · doi:10.7202/700914ar

Le conflit frontalier sino-soviétique de 1969

2005· article· en· W1647622621 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gérard Hervouet

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoviet unionChinaPolitical scienceComplement (music)International conflictGeographyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sino-Soviet conflict of 1969 constitutes part of an historical conflictual continuity between China and the Soviet Union. Three distinct phases have been delimited in this conflict. The approach employed makes it possible to give proper emphasis to the most critical period, that in which the greatest incompatibility in the stated objectives of the two parties occurred. Clearly, the apprehensions of the two States were formulated in terms of perception which enables due consideration of the systemic stakes of the crisis, the territorial aspect of which remained marginal. The density and the types of interaction identified throughout the conflict show the conflict's evolution with precision. As a complement to the application of the comparative analysis of conflict model, the search for domestic factors that could have been determinants of the origins of the border incidents enables a fuller understanding of this crisis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207