INDONESIA‟S ROLE AS A MIDDLE POWER: A NEO-LIBERALIST AND CONSTRUCTIVIST ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research tends to examine Indonesia‟s role as a middle power from the perspective of Realism, Neo-Liberalism and Constructivism. Middle powers are states with moderate influence and strategic importance as a part of the international system, as they are able to implement policies to distinguish their identity without relying on decisions made by great powers. Based on their most prominent power resource and foreign policy practices, middle powers could be classified as: Enforcers (hard power) from Realist perspective, for instance China and Russia; Assemblers (diplomatic behavior) from Neo-Liberalist perspective, such as Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey; and Advocators (soft power) from Constructivist perspective, i.e. Australia, Canada and South Korea. \nThis thesis argues that since independence in 1945, Indonesia has consistently conducted the role of middle power Assembler in regional affairs. During Sukarno‟s term, Indonesia had represented third world countries in international affairs by pioneering Asian-African Conference and non-aligned movement, as well as rejecting neo-imperialist and neo-colonialist forces in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile during Soeharto‟s term, Indonesia had initiated the establishment of ASEAN, enhancing consultation between regional member states under the basis of ASEAN Way and non-interference principle. However during the early Reformation Era, Indonesia‟s concern towards domestic economic and political instability had resulted in vacuum of regional leadership in ASEAN. Afterwards since Yudhoyono‟s presidency in 2004, Indonesia has successfully implemented dual middle power roles of Assembler and Advocator by expanding regional cooperation and promoting democracy in multilateral forums. Finally, Indonesia‟s 2014 election which resulted in Jokowi‟s victory also had a regional impact.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".