US Critical Mineral Policies and Alliance Strategies in an Age of Geopolitical Rivalry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the geoeconomic strategies of the US regarding critical minerals through the lens of geopolitical rivalry with China. Chinese companies, mostly state-owned enterprises, play a prominent role in the extraction and processing of minerals critical to the energy transition. Drawing on the balance of power theory, we argue that the US, the incumbent hegemon, can employ both domestic policies and alliance-building strategies to counterbalance China’s dominance in critical mineral sectors. Empirically, we first assess the nature of US domestic policies with respect to promoting domestic critical mineral production and restricting foreign investment in the extractive sectors through investment screening measures, and then assess the degree to which the US has relied on Five Eyes alliance partners to achieve common strategic goals. We find evidence that the US uses a multifaceted geoeconomic approach involving domestic policies and alliance strategies to counterbalance China’s dominant position in critical mineral supply chains.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it