MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142915051 · doi:10.1177/0020715207075400

Russo-Chinese Energy Cooperation

2007· article· en· W2142915051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Gulick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeopoliticsChinaBeijingCompetition (biology)General partnershipPolitical scienceEconomyFar EastInternational tradeEast AsiaBusinessEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collapse of the Soviet Union has gradually drawn the natural resources of the Russian Far East into Northeast Asia's economic field of gravity. Contrary to what many experts predicted in the early 1990s, the opening of these natural resources to the wider region has generated a substantial dose of interstate friction. Since the turn of the century, much of this friction has revolved around Chinese and Japanese competition to secure hydrocarbon fuels through pipelines transecting the Russian Far East. This competition is mediated by a complex and contradictory situation: Moscow and Beijing are trying to bolster Russo-Chinese partnership through enhanced commercial exchange, but actors in Russian provinces bordering Northeast China remain wary of rising Chinese demographic and economic influence in the area. Nonetheless, the intransigent geopolitical disposition of the US and the changing configuration of world energy markets have given nearly irresistible momentum to expanded Russo-Chinese energy cooperation, even if this portends Russia's partial sidelining of Japan as a customer of east Siberian oil. However, it is still unclear whether expanded energy cooperation alone can pave the way toward genuine geo-economic integration in the Russian Far East—Northeast China border zone.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207