Friends, Enemies or Frenemies? China-Taiwan Discord in the World Health Organization and Its Significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the China-Taiwan diplomatic truce through the prism of Taiwan's post-2009 participation in the World Health Organization (WHO). It argues that Taipei's inclusion in the International Health Regulations (IHR) and its observer status at the World Health Assembly (WHA) did not signify a suspension of the cross-Strait dispute over Taipei's capacity to participate in international a airs independently of Beijing. While Taipei ostensibly sought a WHA observership to strengthen Taiwan's health security, it also wished to validate Taiwan's international legal sovereignty. Beijing, for its part, appeared to have compromised its claim over Taiwan's sovereignty by abandoning the diplomatic isolation of Taiwan in international organizations (IGOs), but in practice enforced its sovereign claim by denying Taiwan unrestricted access to activities of the WHO and other IGOs. Thus, China-Taiwan interaction on the WHO issue created a facade of cross-Strait diplomatic détente. The appearance of a cross-Strait truce benefited Beijing by demonstrating China's goodwill towards Taiwan and by highlighting the practical gains ensuing from cooperative cross-Strait relations. It also benefited Taipei by showcasing an improvement in Taiwan's standing in global a airs as a result of the governmental strategy. However, it did not end the China-Taiwan contestations of sovereignty, nor did it transform them into unambiguous friends. Instead, it turned them into “frenemies“: competitive and mistrustful, yet convinced that cooperation-however tenuous or illusory-advanced their (conflicting) objectives more than the bitter enmity of the past decades.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".