Quantifying the Enhancing Effect of East Asian Cultural Exchange and Cooperation on Regional Sense of Community under the Perspective of Cultural Intersections Using Neural Network Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The countries in East Asia are neighbors in one country, and their cultures are cross-fertilized with each other, so it is of practical significance to enhance the sense of regional community on this basis. In order to explore the effect of cultural exchange and cooperation on the enhancement of regional community consciousness, this paper constructs a semantic graph for the relevant comments on social platforms, combines GNN and LSTM, and constructs a GNN-LSTM sentiment recognition model to identify and quantitatively represent regional community consciousness. Regression analysis is used to test the enhancement effect of cultural exchange and cooperation on regional community consciousness. The experimental results show that the GNN-LSTM model has a better emotion recognition effect and can provide help for the extraction and quantitative representation of regional community consciousness. The regression coefficients of cultural exchange status on the two models are 0.423 and 0.439 (p<0.01), indicating that cultural exchange has an enhancing effect on regional community consciousness. Cultural distance acts as a mediating variable, the more frequent the cultural exchange and cooperation, the smaller the cultural distance, the more the regional community consciousness can be enhanced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".