Central Asia’s Challenging Prospects for Regional Cooperation: External Advocacy and Local Inactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Central Asia is widely recognised as a region, we cannot identify an indigenous regional cooperation process. Whereas from an outside perspective, one may assume the existence of a strong regional cohesion, this is not the case when taking a view from within the region. So far, an indigenous Central Asia regional cooperation process is largely missing, even CAREC may provide a first attempt for an indigenous regional cooperation process. Instead, regional cooperation processes are based on great-power strategies, with Russia and China taking on prominent roles, though we can identify clear differences in their approaches as Russia’s EEU focuses on a closed economic sphere, whereas China’s BRI favours an open process. The implications are, that, for the foreseeable future, the likelihood that we can observe a process of regional cooperation, originating from within the region, is rather doubtful.
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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".