Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores a salient topic that is often overlooked in studies on South Korea's policies toward North Korea: the profound effect on inter-Korean ties brought about by the evolution of South Korea from authoritarianism to democracy in the last 16 years. It also wishes to address the thesis of whether democratization causes war, using South Korea as a case study.\nMansfield and Snyder have argued that democratizing states tend to be belligerent, because both old and new elite often resort to nationalist / ideological appeals to mobilize mass allies to defend their threatened positions and stake out new ones, and then found that the masses, once mobilized, are difficult to control. This essay submits that, whether a democratizing state wants to court conflict with another state depends very much on what these nationalist / ideological positions are. The external policies of a democratizing state will become more cooperative, if the elite promote the pacific preferences of newly empowered constituencies. In post-authoritarian South Korea, this linkage has favoured policies that reduce, rather than exacerbate, external tension.\nAlthough there have been ups and downs in inter-Korean relations since democratization in South Korea, on the whole, relations between the two Koreas have improved. Participation by intellectual, student, labour, clerical and other "leftist. " forces in the political process of South Korea has legitimized hitherto suppressed or muted calls for better relations with the North. It has even led to a change in the security thinking of the government in Seoul, from equating state security with regime security, to identifying it with the security of all Koreans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".