MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037508176 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2020.1743001

Living with Giants and Inconvenient Truths: The US, China, and Everyone Else

2020· article· en· W3037508176 on OpenAlexaffabout
David A. Beitelman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaAdministration (probate law)BeijingForeign policyPolitical sciencePolitical economyInternational tradeEconomic growthDevelopment economicsLawEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Trump administration is redefining the traditional post-World War II approach to American foreign policy, preferring an “America First” approach instead. At the same time, China is becoming increasingly assertive on the world stage, willing to throw its weight around and threaten smaller countries over any perceived slight. For the smaller countries who viewed the United States as a reliable security partner and China as an increasingly important trade partner, the world is looking increasingly uncertain. This uncertainty is compounded by the Trump administration’s more confrontational approach in its China policy. Other states, including Canada, are trying to navigate between a reluctant Washington and a temperamental and brash Beijing. This article argues that a major reset of US-China relations was both inevitable and needed. That said, it is not so much what the Trump administration is doing, but how it is doing it that is the problem. With its heavy-handed “America First” policies, the Trump administration risks losing the support of other states needed to push back against China.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207