Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study focuses on the transformation of China’s grand strategy in the context of the ongoing, long-term Sino-US strategic rivalry. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the study of China’s grand strategy in global politics. To date, at the international level, the relevant study has been overwhelmingly dominated by the American school and narrative based on American realism. This paper therefore conducts the relevant research from a Chinese perspective. The study explores the evolution of the US China policy and the transformation of China’s grand strategy in the context of the Sino-US strategic rivalry. In particular, it demonstrates the linkage between China’s grand strategy evolution and the Sino-US relations. Furthermore, it provides an analysis of the implications of China’s grand strategy transformation. The research methodologies mainly contain comparative, analytical and inductive approaches. A conceptual framework is outlined, illustrating how the US policy and approaches towards China navigate the Sino-US rivalry and transform China’s grand strategy-making and its foreign policy implementation. The author concludes that it is the strategic rivalry and US policy towards China that are transforming China’s “grand strategy” from a defensive to an offensive model. Bloc-driven policy is one of the defining factors in the Chinese-American confrontation. However, in the case of the U.S., the obvious anti-Chinese orientation of the blocs created by Washington may cause a negative reaction from potential allies. In turn, China, relying on the states of the Global South, is also building a network of global partnerships in which such structures as the BRICS, which is becoming increasingly attractive to developing countries. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is also a significant player, and if it expands further, it could become the largest military-political bloc in the Eurasian space.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".