Taking Japan-North Korea Relations Seriously: Rationale and Background
Bibliographic record
Abstract
centrality of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) to politics in Northeast Asia has been underscored above all by the country's suspected development of nuclear weapons since the early 1990s. North Korea provides a number of issues in regards to which the other regional actors try to coordinate their policies. Yet the literature analyzing the coordination of policy towards North Korea too often neglects aspects of the geostrategic context in which the nuclear drama is unfolding; diplomacy towards North Korea has been dissected predominantly from the viewpoint of US-North Korea relations. This binary focus is quite representative of international relations research in general, both in the postCold War era and earlier. Here, just as in many other contexts, the role, stature and leadership of the United States is often simply taken for granted. The assumption of US power functions as the unquestioned background against which research is done, and upon which analysis is built. In the sense that it possesses the greatest capability, the US may well be described as the most powerful state in the post-Cold War era. However, the limits of US power have recently been suggested by developments in Iraq, Iran and now North Korea, with the result that the extent of US power in concrete circumstances is a question that needs continuous elaboration. The tendency not to scrutinize sufficiently the issue of US power in the literature on multilateral coordination of policy on North Korea is probably further emphasized by the fact that most books and articles addressing the topic are written from a distinctively often rather myopic US perspective, engaging mostly USbased scholars.2
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".