Australia, the Us and East Asia: Are Close Ties with the Bush Administration Beneficial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No ally of the United States could claim to be more enthusiastic, reliable or obliging than Australia. Since World War II, when the US replaced Britain as Australia’s principal “great and powerful friend” and guarantor of Australian security, generations of Australian policymakers from both sides of politics have made the cultivation of close ties with America a non-negotiable, sacrosanct part of public policy. Even now, those who question the merits of this relationship inevitably incur accusations of strategic illiteracy at best, mindless anti-Americanism at worst. And yet as Australian troops play an essentially tokenistic part in Americanled “coalitions of the willing” in Iraq and Afghanistan—conflicts which have little immediate strategic relevance to Australia—it seems an appropriate moment to assess the benefits and impact of this relationship, both in terms of Australia’s own national interest, and from the perspective of the wider international system of which both countries are a part. In what follows I argue that the purported benefits to Australia have always been debatable and overstated; they are especially so at present. The government of John Howard has given unconditional and enthusiastic support to the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda, encouraging the illjudged intervention in Iraq and giving momentum to the erosion of a multilateral international order that better suits the long-term interests of a smaller power like Australia. Not only has Australia played a part in undermining the old international system but its close, unequivocal, allegiance to the US may make it difficult to accommodate a new East Asian regional order in which China looks certain to play an increasingly prominent role.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".