A Constructivist Analysis of the Establishment of the AUKUS Security Pact and its Implications for Regional Stability in the Indo-Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attempts to shed light on AUKUS formation based on constructivist perspective and its implications for regional stability in the Indo-Pacific. Using a qualitative approach with a case study method, this article found that the formation of AUKUS is strongly influenced by two fundamental elements of constructivism: identity and interests. Identity refers to the shared ideas among the Anglo-Saxon nations (including Canada and New Zealand). Nevertheless, New Zealand tends not to join AUKUS due to its commitment to non-proliferation, while Canada seems to contribute nothing to the nuclear submarine program. The interests of the AUKUS alliance are: the US desires to strengthen its hegemony in the Indo-Pacific and rebalance China’s domination; the UK craves to become the first European country to enhance alliance cooperation in the Indo-Pacific after Brexit; and Australia’s willingness to modernize its military capability and affirms its commitment to which allies it counts on in the future. The implications of establishing AUKUS might include: undermining the status quo in the region concerning a nuclear-free zone, weakening existing cooperation agreements and reducing mutual trust between traditional allies, and bringing catastrophe to the region by triggering an armed race. Keywords: AUKUS; China; Constructivism; Indo-Pacific; Regional Stability
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".