Interpretation of China’s Global Advocacy for Renewable Energy through Lenses of Liberalism as an International Relations Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been numerous literature analysing the international expansion of renewable energy utilizing realism as an International Relations theory from both For and Against perspectives, such as casting doubt on fair cooperation or urging individual states to catch up with the global competition. This paper attempts to offer an alternative explanation to the international cooperation between China and the world in the field of renewable energy through the lenses of liberalism. The role and influence of liberalism in explaining this phenomenon will be presented in the form of compare and contrast between liberalism and realism, with secondary theories included such as institutional liberalism, idealism and democratic peace theory. The rapid growth of renewable energy globally in recent decades could be attributed to individual states’ policies, intergovernmental cooperation and advocacy by international organizations. The paper demonstrates that China’s ability to develop renewable energy can be correspondingly attributed to its willingness to cooperate under the framework of liberalism. It actively participates in international agreements, works with international organizations, and trades with other countries. With cooperative efforts, it succeeds in mitigating the traditional energy crisis and further promoting energy transition. In conclusion, liberalism provides a more accurate and innovative explanation to China`s advocacy for renewable energy compared to realism, and it can be argued that China’s model of energy transformation could be learned by the international community to tackle climate change.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".