Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Asia-Pacific is poised between two orders: the Postwar Order defined by the US and the alliances formed during the Cold War and the “Great National Rejuvenation” of China which takes as its premise the norm of China’s centrality in the Asian Order prior to the Opium Wars. The US and its allies see the role of the US as essential to order in the Asia-Pacific (now revamped as the Indo-Pacific) while China demurs. The US claims that it welcomes China’s rise so long as it acts within the rules and norms. China proclaims that the Pacific is big enough to contain both China and the US and favors a “new great power relationship” that is win-win. Each side claims deference to its own version of order: the US places first importance on its alliances and the security guarantees contained within them; and China looks to “respect for its core interests” and insists that smaller powers “should not take sides”. The lines of friction between these normative orders run through the South China Sea and the “First Island chain” running south from Japan’s home island. Interest in the security of the Korean peninsula involves overlapping and contrasting views over the survival of the DPRK. Can the US and China to agree to an inclusive vision of order attractive to smaller regional powers? Whereas both sides affirm commitment to “openness,” China invites suspicion that its identity is built on regional domination, and the US provokes regional fears that its true aim in the Asia-Pacific is China’s “containment.” The paper assesses how smaller powers, and US allies like Canada are trying to navigate between these contrasting identities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".