MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033257461 · doi:10.1177/000944550504100204

China's Peaceful Rise and Sino-Indian Relations

2005· article· en· W2033257461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guihong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueChina Report · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaBeijingContext (archaeology)Political scienceGlobalizationDevelopment economicsQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographyEconomyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China and India rank among the world's largest developing nations, fastest growing economies, most populous states, and greatest ancient civilisations. But most importantly, they are among the foremost rising powers in Asia. In the past quarter of century, both China and India's productive forces and overall national strength have been constantly enhanced, which are now widely perceived as ‘the rise of China’ 1 and ‘the emerging India’ (see, for example Cohen 2001; Ma 2002). The rise of China has to be grasped not only in terms of the past (when the Chinese people stood up, became enriched and strengthened under the first, second and third generation of leaders, respectively), but also in terms of the present and future (of a ‘peaceful rise’ under the new generations of leaders and in the wake of globalisation). Fifty years ago, Beijing and New Delhi jointly proposed ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’ (known as Panchsheel in India) to guide bilateral relations between the two newly independent countries. However, the Sino-Indian relationship has experienced an up-and-down process since then, and the resolution of bilateral issues and the establishment of mutual trust still have a long way to go. Therefore, it is extremely necessary to reiterate and materialise Panchsheel, especially in the context of the simultaneous rise of China and India in Asia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChina ReportSame topicSouth Asian Studies and ConflictsFrench-language works237,207