MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080553428 · doi:10.1177/1369148120940938

The Railroad Economic Belt: Grand strategy, economic statecraft, and a new type of international relations

2020· article· en· W3080553428 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Politics and International Relations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaGeopoliticsState (computer science)Political scienceCentralisationContext (archaeology)Grand strategyEconomyEconomic globalizationGreat powerEconomic powerPolitical economyPoliticsSociologyEconomicsLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China’s grand strategy is evolving towards greater activism under Xi Jinping – from ‘keeping a low profile’ to ‘striving for achievement’. New initiatives such as forging ‘a new type of international relations’, ‘a community with a shared future for mankind’, and the Belt and Road Initiative have become marked features of the ‘Xi-change’ in China’s grand strategy. From an economic statecraft perspective, this article hypothesises that the Xi-change led to a power centralisation in the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Railroad Economic Belt. To support its geopolitical and geoeconomic objectives, the Chinese state has replicated the domestic state-industrial complex. In the context of the Jakarta–Bandung High-speed Rail Corridor, the domestic roles of the National Development and Reform Commission and the China Railway Corporation have been internationalised to ensure the globalisation of China’s high-speed rail industry could be conducted in a concerted and choreographed fashion.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0000.003
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Politics and International RelationsSame topicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207