MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“O Século XXI Pertence à China?: Um Debate sobre a Grande Potência Asiática”

2015· article· pt· W1893425373 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anabela Leite, Gisele Braziliano de Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of International Relations · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Industrial and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.255 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of International RelationsSame topicAsian Industrial and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207