From Mutual Hedging to All-Round Competition — The Strategic Transformation of Sino-US relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 21st century, the United States has gradually felt the insecurity brought by structural pressure, and then shifted its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region. The Obama administration put forward "Pivot to Asia", and Trump has abandoned the legacy of the previous administration and constructed his own discourse system. He put forward the "Indo-Pacific strategy", which has been expanded in both degree and contents. Meanwhile, China has taken a variety of corresponding strategies respectively. These include the Belt and Road Initiative and a community with a shared future for mankind and the strategic thought of major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics. These two countries’ communicating model has changed from mutual hedging to all-round competition. With the change of US Asia Pacific (Indo-Pacific) strategy, this article uses the neoclassical realism theory to analyze them in detail, and analyzes the factors that influence the change of US strategies and the transformation of Sino-US relations from the system level, the national level and the individual level. Apart from that, their comprehensive competition has added challenges and difficulties to the construction of coordination, cooperation and stability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".