MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416932638 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v19n1p27

Balancing Giants, Building Influence: Mongolia’s Soft Power in Asia

2025· article· W4416932638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Batmunkh Gerelmaa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft powerChinaCorporate governanceModernization theoryPoliticsDependency (UML)Foreign policyPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes Mongolia’s evolving strategic goals in Asia and the progress of its soft power development. Since the 1990s, Mongolia has pursued a balanced foreign policy through its “Third Neighbor Policy,” while advancing long-term modernization under Vision-2050 and the New Recovery Policy. These strategies have enabled Mongolia to diversify partnerships beyond China and Russia, strengthen cultural diplomacy, and expand educational and scientific exchanges. The country’s climb to 108th place in the 2025 Brand Finance Global Soft Power Index underscores recent achievements in media visibility, culture, education, and international relations. Cultural revival initiatives, international performances such as The Mongol Khan, branding campaigns like “#GoMongolia,” and academic cooperation have played central roles in raising Mongolia’s profile. Yet, significant constraints persist, including political instability, economic dependency on mineral exports, infrastructural limitations, and governance challenges. The study concludes that while Mongolia has enhanced its visibility and cultural appeal, its ability to transform soft power into sustained influence depends on governance reforms, institutional continuity, and deeper regional and multilateral engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207