MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128810708 · doi:10.1177/0020881720981513

Controlling Beliefs and Global Perceptions: Religion in Chinese Foreign Policy

2021· article· en· W3128810708 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft powerChinaIslamPolitical scienceDiplomacyCensorshipForeign policyBuddhismChristianityInternational relationsPolitical economySociologyBeijingPower (physics)PersuasionLawPoliticsSocial psychologyReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has sought to control every aspect of religion in Chinese society. Recently, the CCP has increasingly leveraged religious institutions to disseminate a positive narrative of its religious policies in an effort to preserve or enhance its relations with countries that identify with those religions. This has enabled Beijing to avoid criticism and even increase international support despite widely reported violations of religious freedom in China. This article expands the concept of religious diplomacy to explain the PRC’s dynamic use of soft power, censorship and coercion in its international relations. Drawing on the examples of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, this paper explores the CCP’s efforts to mobilize its religious institutions in order to (a) promote China’s unique religious culture, (b) strengthen domestic control through foreign relations and (c) preserve foreign relations by controlling international perceptions.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.375 · 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