MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912224946 · doi:10.5539/ass.v15n2p177

China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): International Media Reporting and Legal Validity of Gilgit-Baltistan

2019· article· en· W2912224946 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Asif, Yang Ling

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSouth Asian Studies and Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaNewspaperNews mediaPolitical scienceEconomyBusinessEconomic growthGeographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Silk Road Initiative is known as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an initiative which connect the China to the world for establish a free trade zone. China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is one of the mega project of BRI that strengthen the relationship between Pakistan and China. It was started with the initial value of $46 billion for the development of transportation, infrastructure, and energy projects in Pakistan which has reached to $62 billion now. CPEC projects are going to open a new door of progress in Pakistan and also getting an attention of international media to highlight the opportunities and challenges of these ongoing projects. The aim of this study is to observe the international media reporting about the CPEC by examining the international news which was reported in the following international newspapers regarding CPEC, such as Dawn News (Pakistan), Global Times (China), Times of India (India) and BBC News (UK). News reported from January 2018 to June 2018 has the part of my study and tried to find out that the way of international media to shatter the news and what are the differences and similarities among the news reporting. The study has also discussed and clarified the legal territorial right of the regions of the CPEC, especially the Gilgit-Baltistan.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicSouth Asian Studies and ConflictsFrench-language works237,207