Separatist Movements Influenced by International Intervention: The Case of West Papua
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The West Papua issue emerged in Indonesia in 2019 as a separatist movement, influenced by international intervention from Pacific Island nations. The core factors were West Papuans' desire for self-determination, together with ethnic and cultural differences. However, previous self-determination efforts had been unconvincing. This article aims to explore how Pacific Island countries intervened internationally in West Papua issue and how did Indonesia's Jokowi Administration respond to international intervention. In response, the administration adopted a multi-faceted strategy. Domestically, it pursued peaceful dialogue, economic development and some force suppression. Internationally, it strengthened investment, trade and assistance to Pacific Islands while voicing criticism of foreign intervention. Although not completely resolving the issue, the administration upheld national sovereignty and expanded international ties using diverse approaches. This provides insights into managing similar territorial disputes by balancing sovereign integrity with nuanced foreign relations. While separatism was not fully calmed, Indonesia's strategy highlights the importance of collaborative policymaking to maintain national unity amid complex dynamics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".