Philippine Defense Policy in the 21st Century: Autonomous Defense or Back to the Alliance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
a result of the Philippine Senate's decision not to ratify a new base treaty on September 16, 1991, the United States withdrew its forces from the Philippines in November 1992. This event heralded Manila's attempts to discontinue its alliance-based defense policy and forge an independent defense capability. The Philippine government announced its plan to modernize its armed forces through the acquisition of modern aircraft, fast-attack crafts, reconnaissance aircraft and corvettes. In the postUS bases era, the Philippine government appeared determined to undertake a series of decisions and actions aimed at developing an autonomous defense posture. Unfortunately, such attempts began to falter less than two years after the Philippine government passed a law in 1995, providing for the modernization of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) . The financially constrained AFP could barely cover its basic manpower and logistics requirements, and even a modest modernization programme had to be put on the back burner. Thus, a few years after the withdrawal of American forces from the country, the Philippines began looking again to the US for its defense needs. In 1998, Manila formulated a visiting forces agreement with Washington, authorizing the resumption of large-scale cooperative military activities between the two countries. The terrorist attacks in New York and
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".