The Politics of the Dalai Lama's New Initiative for Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1980s, the Dalai Lama first asserted that he was willing to no longer press for an independent Tibet. Until recently, however, scant progress was made toward negotiations between the Tibetan exiles and the government of the People's Republic of China: the PRC had shown no inclination to negotiate about matters beyond the Dalai Lama's own status, while the exiles had insisted that China renounce all control over affairs in Tibet, except foreign affairs and defense. In 2002, largely in response to external pressures, China invited one of the Dalai Lama's brothers to visit Tibet and in 2002-2005 the Dalai Lama's representatives have visited Tibetan areas of China on three occasions and, most recently, have met with PRC representatives in Switzerland. The Dalai Lama has since gone some way toward accommodating PRC pre-conditions for negotiations. He has acknowledged that Tibet is part of China and Tibetan culture part of Chinese culture, as well as refocusing his concerns away from political demands to questions of cultural and religious autonomy. Formidable obstacles to negotiations remain, including exile demands that they be about unification of all PRC Tibetan areas and the establishment of liberal democracy in Tibet. Compromise solutions are available, however, and China can take a number of steps that would facilitate acceptance of compromise in the exile community and that would substantially benefit Tibetans in Tibet.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".