MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394861341 · doi:10.1017/9789048559367.010

Western Policies Toward South and Southeast Asia , Plus Pakistan’s Response, 1962–1970

2024· other· en· W4394861341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoutheast asiaSouth asiaGeographyAncient historyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter 8 considers how Western countries aided India in the post-1962 era and how India's nemesis, Pakistan, reacted. The first two sections argue that Commonwealth countries had an evenhanded aid policy toward India and Pakistan, with Britain and Canada suspending aid to both during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. The next section addresses U.K. engagement with the Himalayan kingdoms. Section four similarly deals with Commonwealth engagement with Southeast Asia. Section five analyzes the U.S.-Tibetan relationship after 1962. Sections six and seven show how the U.S. government evaluated the Chinese threat to the Himalayan kingdoms and Burma. The final section discusses Pakistan's sense of betrayal at the West's aiding India and turn toward China. Keywords: U.S.-Tibetan relationship, Pakistan, aid, Himalayan kingdoms, Burma, 1965 Indo-Pakistani War As India assumed a more assertive posture at the frontier, Western countries became more interested in stabilizing this region. Former U.K. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan put it best when he proclaimed in November 1965 that Britain got involved in the Sino-Indian War not only to help a Commonwealth partner under attack, but also to fight in the “battle for Asia.” This battle embodied a struggle between Indian democracy and Chinese communism. Macmillan concluded, “If I once said that Britain's frontier is on the Himalayas, that frontier is perhaps not so much a military frontier, it is economic, indeed it is more moral and philosophical.” With democracy in Asia seemingly at stake, Britain, members of the Commonwealth, and the United States continued to provide military assistance and moral support to India and its neighbors at the frontier in the years following the 1962 war. Via this support, assessments of Chinese military capabilities, and overtures to Pakistan, the West pursued a united front to stymie what they saw as Chinese expansionism. Be that as it may, Commonwealth powers and the United States held divergent views on backing Tibetan rebels. Pakistan bristled at Western assistance to India. Pakistan and India had been on poor terms since partition in 1947, so it is not surprising that the Pakistani government opposed aid to India.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVietnamese History and Culture Studies→French-language works237,207→