Understanding public diplomacy in East Asia : middle powers in a troubled region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
List of Illustrations Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1. Introduction Jan Melissen 2. Regionalization, Regionalism, and Double-Edged Public Diplomacy in East Asia Yul Sohn 3. Soft Power and the Recalibration of Middle Powers: Comparing South Korea as an East Asian Leader with Canada as the Exemplar of the Traditional Model Andrew F. Cooper 4. Public Diplomacy, Rising Power, and China's Strategy in East Asia Kejin Zhao 5. The Evolution of Japan's Public Diplomacy: Haunted by its Past History Yoshihide Soeya 6. South Korea's Middle Power Activism and the Retooling of its Public Diplomacy Sook Jong Lee 7. Indonesia's Middle Power Public Diplomacy: Asia and Beyond Azyumardi Azra 8. Thinking East Asia, Acting Local: Constraints, Challenges, and Contradictions in Indian Public Diplomacy Jabin T. Jacob 9. Public Diplomacy and Australia's Middle Power Strategy in East Asia Alexandra Oliver and Russell Trood 10. US Public Diplomacy: A Model for Public Diplomacy Strategy in East Asia? Craig Hayden 11. Conclusions and Key Points about Public Diplomacy in East Asia Jan Melissen Recommended Reading List of Contributors Index
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".