Vietnamese cultural diplomacy and the enhancement of Vietnam's soft power - A case study of Vietnamese cultural diplomacy towards ASEAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of soft power has emerged since the beginning years of the 21st century and it has caught attention of many scholars and political leaders of the world. Cultural diplomacy is an instrument utilized by governments to attract the governments and the public of other countries, especially through cultural activities. Studies on soft power and cultural diplomacy have been carried out in different countries such as the United States (the U.S.), China, Japan, South Korea, India, Canada, Australia and so on. However, there are not many works on soft power and cultural diplomacy of small country like Vietnam in both Vietnamese and English literature. This thesis attempts to provide a more in-depth analysis on how Vietnam has carried out its cultural diplomacy in order to enhance its soft power in Asia. The thesis sets up a framework for the analysis of Vietnam’s soft power and cultural diplomacy with theories in international relations as well as with examples from the United States, China, Japan and South Korea. In the next parts, Vietnam’s soft power and cultural diplomacy will be analyzed in specific details. Vietnamese cultural diplomacy towards ASEAN will also be discussed in the last part of the thesis as a case study for a better understanding of Vietnam’s soft power and cultural diplomacy in general.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".