MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484454849 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n3p253

Indonesian Relations with the Eastern Europe, Soviet Union and China before 1965: Systemic and Domestic Factors

2016· article· en· W2484454849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Yazid

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianCommunismPoliticsChinaPolitical scienceState (computer science)International relationsForeign policyIdeologyEconomic historyDevelopment economicsPolitical economySociologyLawHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This article discusses the Indonesian relations with Eastern Europe Communist states, Soviet Union and China Communists before 1965 and how the systemic and domestic factors influenced Indonesian decision. Indonesian foreign relation was closer to communist state after President Sukarno’s official visits to Moscow and Beijing in 1956. Why President Sukarno foreign relations closer to communist states? What was the international political situation that influenced Sukarno to lean to East bloc? What was the domestic situation that influenced Sukarno to do so? Why Indonesian closer relation with the communist not began earlier than 1956? Among the main discussions in this article are: the Indonesian-Soviet Union relations, Indonesian-China relations, Communist ideology and Indonesian relations with Eastern European Communists states. Indonesian relations with Communists state changed dramatically after the Indonesian Coup of September 1965 and the collapsed of President Sukarno and the formation of “new order” regime under Suharto in Indonesia. The changes of domestic politics in Indonesia after September 1965 strongly influenced the Indonesian relations with the Communists states.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207