50 Years from San Francisco: Re-Examining the Peace Treaty and Japan's Territorial Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 1951, against the background of the escalating cold in Asia,Japan signed a peace treaty with forty-eight countries and returned to the international community as a member of the Western bloc. A half-century has passed since then and one decade has passed since the of the U.S.-USSR cold war, the collapse of the Yalta System and the beginning of the so-called post-cold war era. However, except for the demise of the Soviet Union, the international political environment surroundingJapan in the Asia-Pacific is not greatly different the cold era.2 The emergence of the cold was a process in which the nature of SovietU.S. relations altered cooperation to confrontation and, in terms of the Asia-Pacific international order, the Yalta blueprint became distorted and transformed into the San Francisco System. In Europe, the U.S.-U.K.USSR Yalta Agreement of February 1945 became the basis of the cold structure. After it went through a series of East-West tensions, such as the communization of Eastern Europe and the division of Germany, the Yalta System was consolidated and received international recognition as the status quo in the 1973 Helsinki Agreement. But by the early 1990s the Yalta System had collapsed, accompanied by democratization of Eastern Europe, demolition of the Berlin Wall, achievement of independence by the Baltic states, reunification of Germany, and the demise of the Soviet Union. In December 1989, when Presidents Gorbachev and Bush released the end of the cold war declaration in Malta, the expression from Yalta to Malta was often employed in the mass media as symbolizing the advent of a new era.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".