China-Central Asia Regionalization and Its Impact on the Central Asian Region and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since gaining independence, Central Asian countries have maintained stable and friendly relationships with China. Through China-led bilateral, regional, and multilateral projects, China and Central Asia have significantly strengthened their strategic partnership and elevated the importance of their relationship in the region-building process. As a result of these interactions, Central Asia is emerging as an active regional actor. This article characterizes China and Central Asia’s interactions as Warleigh-Lack's (2006) “regionalization” and examines the impact of this process on diffusing China’s model of regionalism in Central Asia. Specifically, the article aims to answer the question: what are the implications of China and Central Asia’s regionalization processes for shaping the region and for the presence of a third actor, Russia? Employing Acharya’s (2004) “norm localization” analytical framework, the article argues that the current Central Asian regional cooperation model can be described as an indirect (recipient-driven) influence of China and Central Asia’s regionalization processes within the scope of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (SCO), bilateral strategic partnership agreements and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It posits that, of the various types of indirect diffusion of institutional and policy models of regionalism, the new Central Asian model of regional cooperation entails a “lesson-drawing” diffusion mechanism from the Chinese model of regionalism. La régionalisation Chine-Asie centrale et son impact sur la région d'Asie centrale et au-delà Depuis leur accession à l'indépendance, les pays d'Asie centrale ont entretenu des relations stables et amicales avec la Chine. Grâce à des projets bilatéraux, régionaux et multilatéraux menés par la Chine, la Chine et l'Asie centrale ont considérablement renforcé leur partenariat stratégique et accru l'importance de leurs relations dans la construction de la région. Grâce à ces interactions, l'Asie centrale en tant que telle est en passe de devenir un acteur régional important. L’auteure caractérise les interactions entre la Chine et l'Asie centrale comme un exemple de la « régionalisation » de Warleigh-Lack (2006) et examine l'impact de ce processus sur la diffusion du modèle chinois de régionalisme en Asie centrale. Quelles sont les implications des processus de régionalisation de la Chine et de l'Asie centrale pour la construction de la région et pour la présence d'un troisième acteur d’importance, la Russie ? S'appuyant sur le cadre analytique de « localisation des normes » d'Acharya (2004), l'auteure soutient que le modèle actuel de coopération régionale en Asie centrale peut être décrit comme une influence indirecte (par les bénéficiaires) des processus de régionalisation de la Chine et de l'Asie centrale dans le cadre de l'Accord de coopération de Shanghai (OCS), des accords bilatéraux de partenariat stratégique et de l'Initiative route et ceinture (IRC). Elle postule que, parmi les différents types de diffusion indirecte des modèles institutionnels et politiques de régionalisme, le nouveau modèle centrasiatique de coopération régionale implique un modèle de diffusion inspiré du modèle chinois de régionalisme.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".