Bibliographic record
Abstract
capabilities and influence and related synergies?has become a global phenomenon economically, diplomatically, culturally and increasingly militarily. While a wide variety of variables and uncertainties still remain to condition or constrain the elongated process of China's ascent, this study, designed to identify patterns and variations of state-level responses in East Asia to the rise of China, opts for a cautious but, overall, optimistic take on the prospect of China attaining the status of a global power.1 A widely subscribed view as to the impact of China's rise forewarns of the inevitability of Sino-American competition or confrontation in East Asia. Based on the premise that China's principal chessboard is as yet located in East Asia, where America's hub-and-spoke system of alliances is in active operation, this somewhat apocalyptic position entails a realist logic that the ascent of China, regardless of its intentions and preferences, is bound to reduce the room for strategic maneuvering by America as the hegemonic power, thereby precipitating a clash of Titans.2 Alternative views abound. Many argue that China's rise may lead to a peaceful power transition, although uncertainties loom large in the long
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".