Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis article introduces the ‘Indo-Pacific’ nomenclature as a strategic political construct that is altering the socio-economic and geopolitical landscape. Home to both India and China, the term is being adopted by governments who see the region as holding both unparalleled economic opportunities along with deeply concerning security challenges. Yet the ascent of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ term is controversial and not all actors have bought into its promise. While the moniker has been favoured by both India and the United States, it has also been met with suspicion most notably from China. Indeed, many analysts consider the paradigm fundamentally designed by the West to counterbalance China’s increasing influence in the region. Despite the controversy, the Indo-Pacific is an important term that more accurately captures and articulates the importance of a vast region that is strategically important for Canada. Résumé Cet article présente une construction politique qui modifie un paysage socio-économique et géopolitique: le terme « Indo-Pacifique ». Abritant à la fois l'Inde et la Chine, le terme est adopté par de nombreuses gouvernements qui considèrent que la région offre à la fois des opportunités économiques sans précédent et des défis de sécurité profondément préoccupants. Pourtant, l'ascension du terme « Indo-Pacifique » est controversée et tous les acteurs n'ont pas adhéré à sa promesse. Bien que le surnom est favorisé à la fois par l'Inde et les États-Unis, il a également suscité des soupçons, notamment de la part de la Chine. En effet, de nombreux analystes considèrent le paradigme conçu par l'Occident pour contrebalancer l'influence croissante de la Chine. Malgré la controverse, « l’Indo-Pacifique » est un terme important qui capture et articule avec plus de précision l'importance d'une vaste région d’importance stratégique pour le Canada.Key words: Indo-Pacific; Canada; Asia; ChinaMots-clés : Indo-Pacifique; Canada; Asie; Chine
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".