MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2119481381 · doi:10.1177/223386590300600209

New Horizon in Korea-Canada Relations in Emerging Asia-Pacific Community

2003· article· en· W2119481381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Young-Suck Moon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Area Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsBoomEast AsiaAsia pacificGeographyPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsEconomyChinaEconomicsOceanographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the late 1990's in Korea, Canada has quickly become the most popular country to travel to, to be educated and immigrate, in what can be called a “boom of Canada”. This sudden interest in Canada has elevated the interest of both countries to better understand each other as the two come together in the emerging Asia-Pacific community. Canada is indeed as much a Pacific nation as an Atlantic nation. However, Canada has been slower to respond to the increasing geopolitical and economic significance of the pacific region until quite recently Canadians were awakened to the coming of “Pacific Century” and the need to strengthen Canada's relationships with Asian markets has become crucial to future economic security. At the same time North American countries have been Asia's largest export markets and the instrumental “spring board” for East Asia NICs, including Korea. I will present in this paper how to facilitate the further development of links between Canada and Korea. They must strengthened and of mutual benefit with increased cooperation of extensive cultural, economical and human exchanges.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Area Review→Same topicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies→French-language works237,207→