Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research using critical discourse analysis examines the response strategies of the Global Times editorials, which clearly reveals the Chinese government’s ideological strategies and tactics against US which uses Uyghur human rights issues as glue to alliance solidarity since Biden took power. The related editorials have constructed a counter-hegemonic ideology against US. First, China urges Russia and developing countries to establish an anti-US coalitions because US violates basic human rights such as safety and life protection of its people caused by the COVID-19, gun violence, racism and natural disasters. Second, western political human rights cannot be applied to developing countries such as China since the basic concept of human rights in developing countries such as China is ‘fighting poverty.’ Such a confrontation between US and China over rights abuses has quickly turned around before and after the sanctions by US, EU, Britain, and Canada on Mar. 22, 2021 over the abuse of Uyghurs, resulting in boycotting Xinjiang cotton by multinational enterprises. The editorials before the sanctions phase expanded the current situation from “human rights debate” and “human rights game” to “media war.” However, the editorials after the sanctions quickly turned the previous “human rights war” into “the hegemonic war.” Furthermore, they instigated the entire people to join the fight in “People’s War” against US.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".