Paradiplomacy practices in Indonesia: Comparative analysis of<scp>Aceh‐Quebec</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article aims to understand paradiplomacy practices in Indonesia by identifying the characteristics of Aceh's paradiplomacy and reviewing it comparatively with the paradiplomacy of Quebec, Canada. The data was collected by documentation study, interview, and literature search. The practice of paradiplomacy in Indonesia is framed in a unitary state system in which the central government still dominates regional foreign activities and the regional awareness for the need of foreign relations is still minimal. This is different from the Province of Quebec in Canada wherein Quebec is one of the most active provinces to take part abroad for the fulfillment of their regional interests. We conclude that the characteristics of paradiplomacy are determined by the institutionalization of paradiplomacy in the regions and the pattern of relations between the central and regional government which usually refers to the form of the state whether unitary or federalist. Related Articles Claude, Denis. 2007. “Canadians in Trouble Abroad: Citizenship, Personal Security, and North American Regionalization.”Politics & Policy35(4): 648–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2007.00078.x . Huijgh, Ellen. 2017. “Indonesia's ‘Intermestic’ Public Diplomacy: Features and Future.”Politics & Policy45(5): 762–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12221 . Sevin, Efe. 2017. “A Multilayered Approach to Public Diplomacy Evaluation: Pathways of Connection.”Politics & Policy45(5): 879–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12227 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".