India’s Foreign Policy towards Malaysia & Singapore: Evolution and Determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a review of the evolution of India’s relations with Southeast Asian countries, particularly Malaysia and Singapore. Over the centuries, India and Southeast Asia have shared history, culture and social values. As a result, the relationships between these two regions exhibit an evolving pattern. During the onset of the Cold War when the world had a bipolar system, India made some weak policy choices due to several factors which affected its relations with Southeast Asia adversely. However, after the end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union, India felt a need to strengthen its ties with Southeast Asia and thus launched the Look East Policy. This paper traces the evolution of India’s foreign policy towards Malaysia through two defining periods – pre- and post-Cold War. An attempt is also made to explain this evolution and shift from time to time in India’s foreign policy towards Malaysia by highlighting the factors responsible for this. The paper makes important contributions by helping understand the trajectory of relations between India, a major regional power and Malaysia. This paper also briefly covers some historical importance of Singapore to India and Malaysia, since both Malaysia and Singapore are considered as two tiger economies in the Southeast Asian region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".