Beyond the Myth: Reassessing the Security Crisis on the Korean Peninsula during the Mid-1960s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
have been a surprisingly high number of clashes between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) since the signing of the Armistice Agreement in 1953. While it is well known that the brinkmanship strategy of the DPRK regime was a crucial cause of the clashes between the ROK and the DPRK, the ROK's role in provoking the DPRK has generally been ignored. Most incidents prior to the early 1990s could not have been thoroughly examined because the ROK government maintained a complete control over the domestic mass media, even though a few specialists on the NorthSouth relationship and newspapers in the ROK have begun to analyze the ROK's responsibility in very recent conflicts. More specifically, some scholars argued that the relationship between the ROK and the DPRK deteriorated significantly after the inauguration of President Lee Myung-Bak in February 2008, due to a new policy toward Korea in the Lee government.1 The so-called North Wind (Pukp'ung) incident shortly before the April 1 1 general election in 1996 is another case deserving attention. Since early April of that year, the DPRK's gunboats and heavily armed soldiers had darted in and out of South Korea. In particular, nearly 200 DPRK soldiers armed with machine guns and mortars repeatedly crossed the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). After an investigation conducted by the Kim Dae-Jung government two years later, it became clear that the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) had been the instigator in the DPRK's violation of the Armistice Agreement. This was because the unstable security situation during the election would have benefited the conservative ruling party rather than the
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".