MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389360529 · doi:10.22459/ac.2023.06

China–Myanmar Relations after the 1 February Military Coup

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389360529 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueANU Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEuropean Regional Development Fund
KeywordsChinaAncient historyGeographyPolitical scienceHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following Myanmar's 1 February military coup, Beijing remained more cautious than other countries in its response.Protesters accused China of supporting the Myanmar generals and torched Chinese factories and boycotted Chinese products.However, did China actually back the Myanmar military?It would be too simplistic to assume that China favoured a return to military rule in Myanmar.Myanmar, with its many Belt and Road Initiative projects, is important for China to achieve its strategic presence in the Indian Ocean; therefore, choosing the appropriate strategy was crucial for a continued relationship.Beijing's initially ambiguous attitude towards the coup did not favour the military; yet, despite having a reasonable relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi, it did not favour the protest movement either.However, as time has passed, China has edged increasingly closer to recognising the military regime, approving funds for infrastructure projects and donating COVID-19 vaccines.Why has this shift occurred?

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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