Australia’s Engagement in the South China Sea under the Prospect Theory Approach and Implications for Australia-Vietnam Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prospect theory, first described in a 1979 paper by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, proves to be an effective tool to explain how people evaluate risk and make decisions in experimental settings. Due to remarkable insights for social sciences, prospect theory has gone beyond economics and provided insights for international relations. This paper aims at using prospect theory to illuminate the nature of Australia’s engagement in the South China Sea (SCS) and thereby clarify the essence of Australia-Vietnam cooperation. In terms of prospect theory approach, the author argues that there are three factors specifying Australia’s involvement in the SCS, including: (i) the rise of China in the SCS, (ii) Australia’s significant interests in the SCS, and (iii) Australia's proactive middle-power status. In light of certain common interests in the SCS, Australia and Vietnam have been sharing serious concerns about security and the risk of conflict in the SCS. From the year 2009 until now, both countries have actively enhanced diplomatic, political and military ties. Regarding Australia’s status and strategic interests in the SCS, the author asserts that Australia should make the SCS more secure by promoting contributions to accommodate its status in the Asia-Pacific region. The findings of this paper would provide helpful guidance for policymakers and leaders from Australia and Vietnam for a better understanding of the increasingly complicated security environment and how to (re-) create a more stable environment in this region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".