The Five Eyes Allies and China: Assessing Threat Perceptions and Power Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract China's expanding role in global affairs, along with its economic, military, and technological capabilities, have increased concerns about it being a potential threat to U.S. hegemony. Consequently, since 2017, threat perceptions have heightened, with China increasingly viewed as a strategic competitor and rival. While the"China threat theory"is widely analyzed, it is often approached from a U.S.-centric perspective, neglecting the viewpoints of other key actors. This study aims to address that gap by examining also the threat perceptions of four US allies—New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—under the Five Eyes intelligence partnership. By analyzing their national security documents from 2008 to 2024, the study seeks to identify the presence, frequency, and sources of perceived threats. The findings indicate that although China as a threat is a multifaceted concern in issues such as identity, intentions, and geography, these countries primarily perceive China’s capabilities as the main source of threat. Finally, all states have elevated their threat perceptions of China, justifying decisions to counter its power in the Indo-Pacific as the main theatre of competition and to reinforce multilateral and bilateral alliances against Beijing.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".