Vietnam's foreign policy strategy vis-à-vis China over the South China Sea issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When it comes to Vietnam's response to China's threat in the South China Sea, it can be said that most of the arguments revolve around whether Vietnam employs a balancing, bandwagoning, or hedging strategy toward China. Across the literature, there is a general consensus that since the 1990s, Vietnam has engaged in a hedging strategy against China’s threat in the SCS. However, the rise of China and its increasing assertiveness in the SCS, coupled with current explanations of Vietnam’s hedging strategy, caused difficulties in identifying Vietnam’s strategic behavior toward China. Using “the patterns of hedging” built off of Koga’s hedging conceptualization (2018), this paper attempts to identify what type of hedging strategy Vietnam uses and its effectiveness in response to China’s aggressive actions in the SCS. The findings indicated first that Vietnam’s policy toward China’s challenge in the SCS fell into the hedging spectrum but leaned more towards soft hedging given a combination of economic bandwagoning and diplomatic balancing; second, while China increases maritime encroachment in the SCS, rather than pure balancing and bandwagoning, soft hedging is a less risky option for Vietnam against China.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".