The roles and perceptions of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs through governmental politics in the Preah Vihear Temple dispute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Thai-Cambodian Preah Vihear Temple dispute, the perceptions of the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) are investigated. Through the employment of role theory, the MFA's national role conceptions (NRCs), since the Cold War period and with concentration on the years�from 2008 to 2013, are explicated. The research presents that the organizational characteristics of the ministry conduce the propensity for cooperative NRCs. At the same time, as the agency dealing with foreign affairs, the material and ideational elements in the external environment are important determinants. Nevertheless, at times,�the national public opinion and the decline of�the MFA's autonomy have�proven to counteract�the ministry's�organizational standpoint in the task of diplomacy and pragmatism in the dealings of external affairs. Moreover, whether the MFA's NRCs are translated to actual policy outcomes, it depends on the interplay of actors in the Thai foreign-policy domain. In the period covered, different dynamics between the foreign-policymaking actors are apparent. With the governmental politics approach, the dissertation demonstrates that Thailand's foreign policies do not represent the NRCs held by the MFA when governmental politics is high in confrontation and the MFA possesses low influence in the action channel.�
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".