The “Pivot to Asia”: AUKUS in the Perception of American Politicum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to forecasting the ways of further evolution of the Western partnership called AUKUS, taking into account the geopolitical plans of J. Biden administration, and based on an analysis of the approaches of the most influential groups among the American political elite to the project. In the context of the American strategy “Pivot to Asia”, differences in views of these groups on the content of AUKUS and its prospects are shown. Special attention is paid to the study of the American experts’ and politicians’ ideas about the potential of using nuclear submarines in the Indo-Pacific region by Australia with regard to “containing” China, as well as technological cooperation between the partnership member countries in order to expand a common industrial base. While the Conservative Republicans believe that it is necessary to focus only on creating a fleet of submarines for Australia (the “first pillar”), Conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans demand to concentrate exclusively on technological cooperation not merely of the three AUKUS countries (the “second pillar”), but also attracting other players to it – Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Canada. Only the Centrist Democrats, who are the most loyal supporters of the administration, are confident that the alliance countries will be able to “pull through” the implementation of both “pillars” of the project. The authors underscore that the coalition of the “second pillar” looks preferable today. It is concluded that the radical divergence of the elite groups’ views makes the future fate of the AUKUS quite uncertain, and the partnership can acquire different configurations depending on the balance of forces within the U.S. political establishment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".