Book Review: Transational Sites of China's Cultural Diplomacy: Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Middle East and Europe Compared.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review celebrates editors Jarmila Ptáčková, Ondřej Klimeš, and Gary Rawnsley’s Transnational Sites of China’s Cultural Diplomacy. Ptáčková Et. Al. advocate for a transnational approach to the study of Chinese cultural diplomacy, suggesting that various sites or localities that aim to improve the image of the PRC aboard can be read as discrete units of analysis. This method stresses the need to expand our understanding of how state or non-state actors’ excerpt or fail to excerpt influence within a given region. An emphasis is placed on the diverse set of forces that are involved in shaping the meaning of a given states cultural diplomacy. The nine chapters in this volume demonstrate how different “sites” influence China’s cultural diplomacy. An effort is made to emphasize how China has adapted or failed to adapt to local circumstance, stressing the governments rapidly changing and developing cultural-diplomatic apparatus. It is concluded that this volume constitutes an important contribution to the study of policy, cultural diplomacy, and our future understanding of the PRC and its ability to win over hearts and minds in a global context.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".