Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the dramatic inter-Korean summit in June of 2000, inter-Korean relations were expected to enter into a new era of reconciliation and cooperation. The summit was consequently followed by a number of events on the Korean peninsula. The two Koreas met for ministerial-level talks, reunions of separated family members, defense minister talks, and other events. North Korea actively expanded its foreign relations. It normalized diplomatic relations with 13 EU countries as well as Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Canada; it also joined the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). North Korea’s vice marshal Jo Myong-rok visited Washington and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright paid a visit to Pyongyang. North Korea’s attitude seemed to be different from that of the past. It was generally agreed that the inter-Korean relationship is undergoing an irreversible change for the better. The prospects for inter-Korean relations seemed bright, at least in the short-run, although long-term prospects for inter-Korean relations are not yet so clear. However, the rosy picture of inter-Korean relations began to be overshadowed by North Korea’s boycott of inter-Korean meetings such as the fifth round of ministerial-level talks and Red Cross talks, which took place following the inauguration of the Bush administration in the U.S. Now, inter-Korean relations appear to greatly depend on the relations between Washington and Pyongyang. The purpose of this paper is to analyze North Korea’s policy direction and prospects for inter-Korean relations in the postsummit era. First, this paper reviews North Korea’s changing survival strategies in the 90’s. Secondly, this paper will analyze North Korea’s policy goals and hurdles that must be overcome to develop inter-Korean relations. Thirdly, this paper analyzes North Korea’s foreign policy direction and prospects for inter-Korean relations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.153 | 0.108 |
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".