MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313019017 · doi:10.2307/2672441

North Korean Perceptions of Self and Others: Implications for Policy Choices

2000· article· en· W2313019017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Han S. Park

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he Korean peninsula is known as the most heavily armed area in the world in terms of both manpower and weaponry. One need only travel to the DMZ to see the massive forces confronting one another. What is not as obvious to the casual observer is the fact that the security of this region is most unpredictable and uncertain due to the pervasive mistrust that exists between the two systems. This remains true despite the inter-Korea summit meeting in June 2000 that led to a series of reconciliatory gestures from both sides, such as uniting separated families, exchanging performing artists, and entering the Sydney Olympic stadium under the same flag. North Korea is still vilified as the singular actor that is irrational, unpredictable, and lacking civility. Such criticisms are made of North Korea with little knowledge about the thought processes, policy motivations, and behavioural traits of this alienated system. The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the policy goals, strategies, and tactics that North Korea has employed in the post-cold war years. In so doing, it is hoped that we can empathize with North Korean decision-makers to enable us to explain better Pyongyang's policy behaviour. The perspective employed in this essay may be called the phenomenological approach in the sense that North Korean perceptions constitute the reality and that these perceptions must be articulated from the standpoint of the perceiver.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207