Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peace and Security in Indo-Pacific Asia is for the informed, the interested, and the engaged. Sorpong Peou brings together the skills of the pedagogue with the knowledge of the scholar. -Dr. David Dewitt, University Professor Emeritus, Senior Scholar, York University, Toronto, Canada. Peou’s excellent book provides both the lay reader and the specialist with six important theoretical frameworks which should provide the basis for better appreciation of what a security community in Indo-Pacific Asia means in our world today. There are very few scholars who understand the region like Peou. -Dr. W. Andy Knight, Professor of Political Science, the University of Alberta, Canada. Sorpong Peou’s extraordinary breadth of knowledge, of both International Relations theory and the key trends in Indo-Pacific Asia, shines through in this authoritative analysis. -Dr. Richard Stubbs, Professor of Political Science, McMaster University, Canada. A pedagogical approach of the textbook that is appreciated is how the author respectfully engages with the theories of IR and is not pushing an agenda of denouncing some theories and trying to persuade the reader of others. We live in such polarizing times that it is truly refreshing to read scholarly work that avoids sensationalistic attacks on theories that have been debated for decades. Each theory in this manuscript is explored on its own terms, and the reader is encouraged to figure out where they stand on these enduring debates in the context of Indo-Pacific security. The approach will lead to compelling classroom discussions of the theories and the politics of the region. This book is a must-read for any student or observer of security trends in the region. -Dr. Mark Williams, Chair and Professor of Political Studies, Vancouver Island University, B.C., Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".