East Asia's Changing Regional Architecture: Towards an East Asian Economic Community?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the opening years of the twenty-first century, there is a growing sense that the economic and political centre of gravity in international affairs is shifting toward East Asia. In response to increasing economic integration, the broader challenges of globalization and growing security concerns, regionalism in East Asia is on the rise. In particular the increasing participation and respective weight of regional powers in the international economy, simmering inter-state tensions and concerns about new security threats have led to calls for the creation of an East Asian Economic Community (EAEC).1 An EAEC holds out the promise of geopolitical stabilization and economic growth through harmonization and integration. For its supporters, an EAEC's appeal lies in the payoffs that region-wide economic collaboration can offer. From dealing with the risks of unbalanced economic growth to untangling the mess created by the proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs), substantive economic cooperation across the region offers a range of palpable advantages.2 But the widespread support for economic cooperation is not met with agreement on how this can be achieved. The East Asia Summit, first held in Kuala Lumpur in December 2005, is thought by some to be a first step toward the creation of an EAEC.3 The Declaration made at the conclusion of the inaugural meeting gives a sense of the broad ambition that participants have for cooperation under its auspices but also the lack of detail on quite what this might entail.4 In part, this is because community construction is still in its early stages, but
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".