Shifting balance in Central Asia: The Role of External Actors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competing regional cooperation mechanisms in Central Asia provide a unique opportunity for a case study of overlapping regionalisms pursued by three core external actors: the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Russian Federation (RF), and the European Union (EU). The authors’ analysis is focused on the increasingly competing trade routes or corridors in Central Asia as well as the rivalry and interdependency between the participating countries. The research question addressed is what are the distinctive roles of the core powers—EU, RF and PRC—in reshaping the region? The mapping of the most important external-driven regional initiatives in Central Asia, their goals and achievements presented in this article, provides supporting evidence to a potential divide-and-conquer strategy pursued by the three external powers in Central Asia. The use of bilateral agreements and privileged relations with certain countries (Kazakhstan) hinder the development of regional cooperation. Le remodelage de l’Asie centrale : Le rôle des acteurs extérieurs Les mécanismes concurrents de coopération régionale en Asie centrale offrent une occasion unique d'étudier les différentes politiques régionales poursuivies par trois acteurs extérieurs essentiels à la région : la République populaire de Chine (RPC), la Fédération de Russie (FR) et l'Union européenne (UE). L'analyse des auteurs se concentre sur les routes ou corridors commerciaux de plus en plus concurrentiels, ainsi que sur la rivalité et l'interdépendance entre les pays participants. Quels rôles jouent les principales puissances - la RPC, la FR et l’UE - dans le remodelage de la région ? La cartographie des principales initiatives des politiques régionales de provenance extérieure à l’Asie centrale, ainsi que leurs objectifs et leurs accomplissements, présentée dans cet article, apporte des preuves à l'appui d'une stratégie de division et de conquête poursuivie par les trois puissances en Asie centrale. Par exemple, l’usage d’accords bilatéraux et les relations privilégiées entretenues avec certains pays, comme le Kazakhstan, entravent le développement de la coopération régionale.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".