MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968428087 · doi:10.4324/9781315759012-20

Preparing ideas for the future: envisioning a multilateral settlement

2014· book-chapter· en· W2968428087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kimie Hara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSettlement (finance)Earth scienceGeologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the sixtieth anniversary since the enactment of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) (April 28, 2012), an international conference entitled Sixty Years of the San Francisco System: Continuation, Transformation, and Historical Reconciliation in the Asia-Pacific was held in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. The whole-day conference was devoted to examining key developments of the contentious political and security issues in the Asia-Pacific that share a common foundation in the early post-World War II arrangement with Japan. The SFPT, together with its associated security arrangements, significantly shaped the post-World War II order and laid the foundation for the structure of the Cold War confrontation in the Asia-Pacific: The San Francisco System is in many ways responsible for continuing tensions in the region. These include both tangible and intangible conflicts, of which the major issues were examined at the conference, where intensive and lively discussions were exchanged among the participants from China (PRC and ROC), Japan, Korea (ROK), Russia, Australia, the United States, and across Canada. Although almost all participants acknowledged the importance of peaceful resolution, they did not necessarily share a common view on the issues examined, such as disputes over territories and “history” problems. Nevertheless, it generated significant inspirations for considering conflict resolutions in the region.1

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0180.018
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKorean Peninsula Historical and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207