Formation and Development of Bilateral Relations of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the People's Republic of China in 1990-e-2000s
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The urgency of the problem under investigation is determined by the current political situation in the world, strengthening China’s position in the international arena, as well as the intensification of its ties with the countries of Central Asia, especially Kazakhstan. The purpose of the article is to analyze the process of formation and development of bilateral ties between China and the Republic of Kazakhstan at the current stage. The leading approach to the investigation of the stated problem is systematic, including the analysis of all aspects of China-Kazakh relations (politics, economy, energy, culture etc.) It allows to estimate objectively the level of the bilateral relations. The article presents the review of the key diplomatic events during the indicated period; it looks through the main regulatory legal acts, it identifies the main fields of bilateral cooperation, it evaluates the nature of their relationships and the most complicated issues and problems, it determines the value of interstate relations in general. The article proceedings are valuable for the authors engaged in international relations, can be used in research on the subject of Central 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it