“O Século XXI Pertence à China?: Um Debate sobre a Grande Potência Asiática”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O livro “O século XXI pertence à China?: Um debate sobre a grande potência asiática”, lançado em 2012 pela editora Elsevier no Brasil, fruto da reprodução bibliográfica de um dos debates promovidos pela Aurea Foudation, os denominados “Debates Munk”, traz a público a oportunidade de observar como 4 grandes estudiosos da política internacional, mais detidamente da relevância da China nesse novo cenário, compreendem a nova configuração de forças que vem mudando os contornos da política global. O livro reproduz o 70º Debate Munk realizado no dia 17 de junho de 2011, no Thomson Hall em Toronto (Canadá), tem o mérito de captar o frescor da verve oral de quatro grandes debatedores que refletem e debatem tendo como norte uma pergunta: o Século XXI pertencerá ou não à China?
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".