Analysing Knowledge Diplomacy and Differentiating It from Soft Power and Cultural, Science, Education and Public Diplomacies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The purpose of this article is to explore the contemporary role of international higher education, research and innovation ( IHERI ) in international relations ( IR ). Using an interdisciplinary and conceptual approach, it examines how diplomacy and higher education scholars understand and label the rationales, strategies and contributions of IHERI to IR . The findings indicate that multiple terms are used, resulting in terminology chaos and confusion. The concept of knowledge diplomacy is proposed, defined and analysed as a comprehensive term to frame the role of IHERI in IR . The similarities and differences between knowledge diplomacy and related terms such as cultural, public, science and education diplomacy and soft power are examined. Issues that require further investigation are identified, with special attention given to the differences between using a knowledge diplomacy approach versus a soft power approach to understand the role of IHERI in IR .
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it