Does China pose a threat? Examining the US case for a new Cold War
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, relations between the United States and China have deteriorated to their lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic relations in the 1970s. The US government has argued that China constitutes the principal threat to the security and prosperity of the United States and the world at large. This thesis analyzes contemporary US foreign policy towards China, focusing on the official justifications underlying Washington’s stance. Through case-study analysis, this thesis examines US narratives regarding China in three key arenas of the growing conflict: (i) relations with the Global South and the claim that China practices “debt-trap diplomacy”; (ii) the “trade war” and allegations that China engages in “unfair” economic practices and its economic development threatens US national security; and (iii) tensions surrounding Taiwan and notions that Chinese “aggression” is endangering the island, while US involvement is driven by concerns for peace and democracy. This thesis argues that serious reasonable doubts exist regarding the justifications provided by the US for its foreign policy towards China. Instead, this thesis argues that the United States is pursuing an aggressive containment strategy aimed at blocking China’s ascendance and securing US global supremacy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".