MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388534733 · doi:10.1177/00207020231213612

The US-China Semiconductor Power-Security Dilemma: Decoupling the Security and Power Struggles Through the Theory of Dr. Barry Buzan

2023· article· en· W4388534733 on OpenAlexaff
Carter Brundage

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDilemmaSecurity dilemmaChinaNational securityDecoupling (probability)GeopoliticsSecuritizationVulnerability (computing)Power (physics)Political scienceGreat powerSociologyBusinessComputer securityLawComputer scienceEngineeringPoliticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly, both China and the US frame the secure domestic supply of semiconductors as a national security issue. Yet it is difficult to differentiate between the securitization of semiconductors as a national security vulnerability or as an arena for geopolitical competition. This article leverages Barry Buzan's theory of the power-security dilemma to provide a framework for deciphering and decoupling the two countries’ efforts to reduce their semiconductor supply-chain vulnerabilities and related power struggle. First, the US's and China's supply-chain vulnerabilities are explored as a security struggle, with special attention paid to their dependencies on Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Second, recent American efforts to restrict the flow of semiconductor technologies to China are explored as a power struggle. This article concludes by using Buzan's theory to draw conclusions about the origins and potential evolution of the US-China semiconductor power-security dilemma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207