Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline the history of the Sino-Indian conflict and to evaluate recent changes as reflected in the high level meetings between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It explores the evolving relationship in terms of three types of bargaining: elusive, tacit and convergent. Design/methodology/approach – By adopting a historical approach one gets a better sense of the evolving pattern of relations between China and India and the circumstances in which the evolution is occurring. Findings – China-India relations are similar to a journey where the progress is measured in terms of small steps rather than a final peace settlement. Relations have changed slowly towards a positive direction in economic relations, and there is a pattern of stability in border talks but the issue is complicated by the linkages between the Tibet question and border issues. Research limitations/implications – This topic requires considerable research because it is important for the future of Asian international relations and it is under-researched. Perhaps there could be an edited volume which brings together researchers from different backgrounds and expertise. The suggested work must be empirical but with a theoretical framework related to different types of bargaining cultures and experiences in Asia. Originality/value – As China and India evolve in their diplomatic practices and thinking, as Asian powers are readjusting their policies in the light of new circumstances, there are insights for policy analysts and practitioners in China and India among other Asian countries.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".