Five Eyes indopasifisella alueella tiedustelun kansainvälisen yhteistyön näkökulmasta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International intelligence cooperation has existed as long as state-based intelligence itself. In recent decades, an expanded concept of security and the rise of transnational threats have further emphasized its significance. Such cooperation may cover the entire intelligence cycle and include not only information sharing but also joint analysis, training, and coordinated operations. One of the most prominent multilateral intelligence alliances is the Five Eyes, comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The depth and breadth of cooperation within the alliance are unparalleled globally. The aim of this study was to examine how the activities of the Five Eyes collective in the Indo-Pacific region reflect the theoretical framework of international intelligence cooperation in practice. In addition, the study sought to describe the forms of practical intelligence cooperation within the alliance and to assess whether any changes occurred in these practices during the period between 2015 and 2024. The study was conducted as an integrative literature review, analyzing systematically collected academic material. The findings were interpreted using a theoretical framework on international intelligence cooperation. The results indicate that Five Eyes exemplifies the theoretical characteris-tics of multilateral intelligence cooperation. Its activities in the Indo-Pacific re-flect high levels of both depth and scope, driven particularly by China's growing regional influence, transnational threats, and technological developments. Cooperation manifests through shared analysis, operational coordination, liai-son officer activity, and joint training. However, the study was unable to con-clusively identify clear changes in the nature of the cooperation between 2015 and 2024, although certain themes were found to be more prominent during different phases of the examined period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".