MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077680151 · doi:10.1353/chn.2004.0002

Retaining Separatist Territories: Comparing China and Canada

2004· article· en· W2077680151 on OpenAlex
Wayne Bert

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChina An International Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Zones and Regional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGeographyPolitical scienceEconomic geographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attitudes/policies towards separatist territories vary widely. Canada is tolerant towards the potential secession of Quebec, but China has vowed to use force to avoid losing Taiwan. Liberal democracies such as Canada are more receptive to self-determination and separatism. However, democracies display ambivalent attitudes and democracy alone cannot explain tolerance towards separatism. Virtual states, however, consistently have lenient policies towards separatism. Decentralised Canada and the benign North American security environment also help explain Canada's attitude, but security concerns directly related to the separatist movements and the size of the parent countries show little correspondence to the different attitudes on separatism.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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